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:
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

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

The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

    I've not been thrilled with our shooting guard spot for years. I like Rush and think he can be a solid Bowen-type guard for us, but I'd also like to see us get more firepower out of that spot. I like Dunleavy and George, but neither one is a natural two.

    So, having given the caveat that I like all of those guys, the question is "who could we get that's better than them?"

    What shooting guards are out there that are available and better than what we've got?

    This space for rent.

  • #2
    Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

    I don't really have any problem grooming Paul George for the position. Why shouldn't he play the two? He's certainly quick enough.
    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports


    • #3
      Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread



      • #4
        Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
        I don't really have any problem grooming Paul George for the position. Why shouldn't he play the two? He's certainly quick enough.
        Yea, a lot of scouts had him pegged as a two coming out of college. I think a lot of people just look at the height and assume he isn't a natural two. I personally think he is very capable of playing the two guard.


        • #5
          Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

          If I just had to upgrade right now.... I'd trade Danny for one.


          • #6
            Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

            This is never going to happen, and even if I were Larry I don't know if I would do this. But I wan't you guys to hear me out. I don't want hatemail or whatever.

            Stephen Jackson.

            He has molded into a mature player that plays scrappy defense and has an uncanny ability to get to the line. He is extremely good at the triple threat and can teach Paul a thing or two about how to get his own shot.

            He has two years left with about 8.5 million owed each season. He is about a 20/5/5 guy and would help us tremendously.

            Charlotte is not very good right now and they are not headed in the right direction. Jackson is not in their best interests because they want youth and a clean slate. They have not been managed well and they just lost their point guard. If we send TJ, Rush, and a 2nd I bet we could snag him.

            It won't happen though.

            Other options: Courtney Lee (fresh in my mind ), Gerald Henderson, Marquis Daniels, Francisco Garcia, or Ronnie Brewer maybe. I can't think right right now.


            • #7
              Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

              I think George can be that guard in a few years.

              His shot looked pretty in summerleague, despite the misses. Although now it looks like he's forcing things. But he's just raw. Very talanted though.

              and quite frankly, if we're going to have Collison (or Price) looking for their shot, I think it's okay to have a passive Rush. Who shoots threes and defends well.


              • #8
                Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

                Damn I just waisted one minute of my life reading the previous post

                Edit: the post before sookie
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                • #9
                  Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Edit: the post before sookie



                  • #10
                    Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

                    I like Lance as a possibility.

                    He can create. That's what we need on the floor. Or we need to trade for someone who can create their shot. I feel like the closest thing we have right now is Hansbrough.

                    Danny doesn't create very well. Dun is still struggling to do so. Hibbert can when he gets it down low. I does look like Collison can create his own shot, so that will help us.

                    But we need one, solid, effective player who can create their own shot. Besides the handful of untouchable superstars, I don't know who we could obtain who fits the bill. Zach Randolph could do it but he has too many other liabilities. I've always liked Barbosa as someone who can create off the dribble. He's getting a bit old, though. Terry from Dallas could help us somewhat.

                    Those are some thoughts, but I don't think its easily fixable. If Lance decided to be a serious defender and avoids the law and matures as an offensive force, I do think he could help us. He can certainly create off the dribble.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


                    • #11
                      Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

                      I see this discussed all the time.

                      What is the difference between a shooting guard and a small forward? I'd like to know the clear cut differences before I can think of the perfect solution.


                      • #12
                        Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

                        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                        Too young. Paul needs to be developed correctly. Much like Danny was.

                        If it were possible, I think the best complement to Danny is Andre Iguodala. Danny could continue to be an outside force. Meanwhile Andre could attack the rim.

                        Thus far, Andre Iguodala doesn't seem available. However, if Evan Turner were to become a candidate for the rookie of the year award I could imagine him becoming expendable. Perhaps a first round pick and a few young players. I love Paul George, but I would trade him and a first round pick for Iguodala. Regardless of whether or not it is realistic he is on my wishlist.


                        • #13
                          Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          I see this discussed all the time.

                          What is the difference between a shooting guard and a small forward? I'd like to know the clear cut differences before I can think of the perfect solution.
                          Quicker, better ball-handler. Other than that......?


                          • #14
                            Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

                            I was looking at some of the shooting guards in the NBA and to upgrade the position they would have to be better than Brandon or Dunleavy, they have to be good defenders like Brandon and score more than 10ppg like both of them, here is a list of player that could maybe be the answer at the 2 spot:

                            Monta Ellis: He average over 25ppg last year and is a really good defender, the only problem with him is that he is a black hole, is not a good passer and at times he is to small to guard bigger shooting guards.

                            Gerald Henderson: we don't know how good he is, is he better than Rush and Dun?

                            Jamal Crawford: another black hole that does not play D

                            Daniel Gibson: Only shoots threes and plays no D, he play the point but is a two.

                            Antony Parker: Decent player but is not an improvement.

                            Jason Terry: no going to happen

                            JR Smith: really good player can score in bunches but no way that Larry brings that guy here

                            Aaron Affalo: really good player but is not an upgrade

                            Richard Hamilton: too old and too much money

                            Ben Gordon: too much money and does not play D

                            Courtney Lee: good player he average 12ppg last year, plays good D but in no way Houston let him go

                            Eric Gordon: we can only dream right?

                            OJ Mayo: he could be an improvement but his defense is not that good and Memphis is not letting him go either

                            Michael Red: old and broken down

                            Corey Brewer: he is a really good player, his shot from outside is not that good in general he is just an small improvement I think.

                            T will: how good is he? NJ is not letting him go

                            Jeff green: he is 6'9'' but he is listed at SG, really good player but again he is out of reach

                            James Harden: here is one guy that could be the answer he average 9.9ppg on his 1st season, Oklahoma is not going to have the cash to pay everybody, this guy is an starter playing backup right now.

                            Iguadola: not going to happen

                            Jason Richardson: free agent next year, decent defender amazing offensive player but I think somebody else is going to pay him big money.

                            Rudy Fernandez: he does not want to play in the NBA anymore

                            Francisco Garcia: he average 8.8 ppg last year, is he better than Rush and Dun? I'm not sure

                            George Hill: San Antonio is not trading him right now

                            this are most of the guys I can come up with, the other ones have either big contracts or the teams are not going to trade them for anybody(Kobe,Dwade, etc)
                            Last edited by vnzla81; 10-11-2010, 12:08 AM.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                            • #15
                              Re: The "How would you upgrade the shooting guard position" thread

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Quicker, better ball-handler. Other than that......?
                              I would say shooting guards tend to be better shooters too. (Although not always)

                              Funny thing is, to this day, the best team I've ever seen used their SF like a PF and the SF, PF, and C were pretty much interchangeable.
                              Last edited by Sookie; 10-11-2010, 12:15 AM.