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

new starting SG

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

  • Re: new starting SG

    Still not convinced George should get the start. Presuming we make the playoffs, having a rook start just seems to be advancing too quickly. Carlisle subscribed to this theory, but he adjusted accordingly.

    Granted we did not have many young players getting PT with the abundance of veteran players, but Bender got minutes when he was able, Harrison, Fred Jones.

    I dont consider it written in stone a rookie should not start, but if they do they should have 4 years of collegiate experience to go with it, or be LeBron James/Blake Griffen.

    Comment


    • Re: new starting SG

      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
      Yeah, like Sookie said, Rush lost his spot in the rotation because of injury, so I don't think it's the same at all. If Vogel removed Rush from the rotation for no reason other than just being on a whim, then it would be pulling a JOB.
      I was just joking.


      What has changed is that George is basically backing up both Danny and Mike. So if Mike stays as the starter Rush would be taking as many minutes away from Paul as Mike.

      Comment


      • Re: new starting SG

        Brandon should start!
        Why?
        -No need to put pressure on Paul by putting him in the starting unit. Let him watch, learn & come into the game w/ an idea of how the game is going & where he can best use his talents.
        -No need to mess up the 2nd unit any more then possible. Let the chemistry continue w/ the "Bench Bargade" as they have been fantastic.
        -Rush has started, so doing so is a natural fit for him & the other starters are use to playing with him. He is an upgrade to the talent/ athleticism, & provides the defense that others on the 1st unit currently lacks.
        -We have yet to see what the "freedom" from the chains of JO'B will do to Brandon's game. Everyone else who has improved their play. Everyone else is useing their instincts & athleticism in new/ "natural" ways. I do not recall anyone ever questioning B.Rush's ability, but we have questioned his mental makeup. well, we saw what the change has gdone for Roy, why should we so easily dismiss what affect the change could do for Brandon?
        -When has Brandon ever been pushed? He has never really ever had to fight for a job. You could argue he has w/ Mike, but I think most people believe that Mike was going to play over Brandon because that is what JO'B wanted. Even when Brandon did start, he was never "pushed". I for one one am interested on how he will react to Paul's development. Will this drive him? Can Vogel get Brandon punch'n meat, chase'n chickens, & pull'n a sled or rocks thru 12' snow drifts? Will Brandon (re)find his love for the game?

        Start Brandon.
        Let Paul grow at a proper pace, let Brandon show if he can be who we all think he can be, because if he does, if they both do, we just got a lot better, Larry just got a lot smarter, and we all will get to sit back and watch what could be something special.
        "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
        (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

        Comment


        • Re: new starting SG

          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
          Rush was losing his spot before the injury.

          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...-the-rotation/



          http://www.rotoworld.com/recent/nba/1507/brandon-rush



          Granted, just because J'OB said it, doesn't mean he was going to do it.
          No doubt he was going to do it, Jim was in love with Mike, just like anything else Jim did there was not a reason to bench Rush.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Re: new starting SG

            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
            Rush was losing his spot before the injury.

            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...-the-rotation/



            http://www.rotoworld.com/recent/nba/1507/brandon-rush



            Granted, just because J'OB said it, doesn't mean he was going to do it.
            Rush lost his spot due to the 5game suspension. Most of the team played poorly over December.

            Rush was this teams starter the majority of last season and he was a first rounder. Dunleavy is not going to be resigned and its time to see if Rush can play under a different coach, if its the same results its time to move on with him as well or plan on George as the starter opening day next season.. which may happen anyways.

            it could go good or bad with rush, but unlike DJOnes or Dunleavy we have more invested in this kid and he may be around for awhile if he plays up to his potential.

            bottom line imo, we need defense at the SG position, i dont care if its Rush or Jones but a change needs to be made if this team is going to have any chance in the postseason.

            if we meet the bulls as a 6 seed, i want rush on rose alas the westbrook game.

            Comment


            • Re: new starting SG

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I was just joking.


              What has changed is that George is basically backing up both Danny and Mike. So if Mike stays as the starter Rush would be taking as many minutes away from Paul as Mike.
              Right, which is why I advocated starting Rush and removing Dunleavy from the regular rotation.

              I like Dunleavy on one end of the court. He moves really well without the ball, and he also is one of the few Pacers who seems to know how to use an off-the-ball screen. I particularly enjoy the two-man games that he plays with Josh opposite the ball. I think those two are probably our smartest offensive players, and they seem to play well together.

              However, I do not think the little things he does offensively is enough to offset his defensive limitations.

              Comment


              • Re: new starting SG

                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                Rush lost his spot due to the 5game suspension. Most of the team played poorly over December.
                Huh?

                Rush started last year because Mike was recovering from an injury that started the year before. If you're going to go that route. The 5 game suspension had nothing to do with it. Mike being healthy did. Regardless, how do you lose your spot at the end of January from a suspension served at the beginning of November?

                Comment


                • Re: new starting SG

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  No doubt he was going to do it, Jim was in love with Mike, just like anything else Jim did there was not a reason to bench Rush.
                  Heck, Jim was in the process to having Roy lose his starting spot.
                  Listen, IMO EVERYONE on that roster not named Ford or Posey should be given a mulligan & should be judged on how they respond to the new atmosphere, new style, new confidence.
                  Lets judge Brandon on what he does from here on out. Lets remember the 31 game stretch he had 2 yrs ago to end the season just as you judge Roy off how he started this year, before Jim pi$$ed in his Wheaties.
                  "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                  (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                  Comment


                  • Re: new starting SG

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I was just joking.


                    What has changed is that George is basically backing up both Danny and Mike. So if Mike stays as the starter Rush would be taking as many minutes away from Paul as Mike.
                    Pauls minutes are obviously not going to be reduced. start rush and George can b/u either Rush or Granger, then Dun/Jones can play based on matchups.

                    kinda ideal cause then PG24 can play either the sg or sf position. if we need offense in the 2nd unit, go with dun, we need dfense play Djones.

                    the two players we have less invested in still play but situationally

                    Comment


                    • Re: new starting SG

                      Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                      Huh?

                      Rush started last year because Mike was recovering from an injury that started the year before. If you're going to go that route. The 5 game suspension had nothing to do with it. Mike being healthy did. Regardless, how do you lose your spot at the end of January from a suspension served at the beginning of November?
                      i think the position was up for grabs to begin training camp but when rush was handed the 5 game suspension dunleavy got the nod and it was his to lose from there.

                      Comment


                      • Re: new starting SG

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        i think the position was up for grabs to begin training camp but when rush was handed the 5 game suspension dunleavy got the nod and it was his to lose from there.
                        Rush was given the suspension long before training camp, in August I believe. It wasn't something that just happened during training camp or preseason and killed his momentum from taking the starting SG position during camp.

                        Comment


                        • Re: new starting SG

                          I'm good with Paul George starting at the SG spot, over Dunleavy, for now. I don't think he should be there forever. When a trade happens, or when Brandon Rush gets better, his placement will be reassessed, where I think he'll probably stay there, or end up as a 6th man behind Danny and Rush.
                          witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

                          Originally posted by Day-V
                          In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
                          Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


                          Comment


                          • Re: new starting SG

                            Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                            Dunleavy shouldn't have started tonight, and should never be expected to guard Wade, however at the beginning of the game we had Collision on Wade(equally bad decision).
                            We did not start the game with Collision on Wade. At the jump ball Dunleavy was clearly lined up next to Wade and had the assignment, very clearly.

                            The first score of the game Wade did hit a shot over Collision (a tough one handed baseline shot over Collison who actually tried to guard him) when the assignments got messed up in transition after a Pacer turnover.

                            The next 14 points Wade scored were directly at Dunleavy, going around him like he was not even there or even trying. Paul came in and Wade immediately hit a baseline fade away with Paul all over him, Wade had 18 in the first 5-1/2 munites, 14 on Dun.
                            "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                            Comment


                            • Re: new starting SG

                              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                              Yeah, like Sookie said, Rush lost his spot in the rotation because of injury, so I don't think it's the same at all. If Vogel removed Rush from the rotation for no reason other than just being on a whim, then it would be pulling a JOB.
                              Rush was behind Dunleavy and George pre-injury.

                              Comment


                              • Re: new starting SG

                                I think it is probably more accurate to say that Rush has not had a chance to earn a starting spot under Vogel due to his injury.

                                You either trust Vogel's rotations or you don't. If you trust them, then you have to say he sees a reason to continue starting Dun. You might not see it, or you might see something else, but you have to at least give him credit for that much. Otherwise, you're starting to go down the "coach is an idiot when he does things I don't agree with" path.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X