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

The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

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

  • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    I have not watched enough Barbosa, but my initial reaction is that he is more valuable than Price. What this game comes down to is putting the ball in the basket and he's what you need on what can be a stagnant bench. Of course, my views on him need to fully develop over a bit more time...
    I think it kind of depends on the players you have around them. If Tyler was scoring as we hoped he would have, having a backcourt of Price/Hill would prove to be better than a backcourt of Hill/Barbosa, but because we needed a second scorer on the bench we needed something. I don't think Barbosa has really improved the situation just changed it, I can see how some people think what he does is more valuable, but having him also means playing Hill out of position because he is too good to not play.

    Comment


    • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      Do we really have a big enough sample size to reach a conclusion in either direction on this?
      I think we have enough of a sample size to agree that Hill plays best off the ball. His play regressed when he started playing PG on the reserves.

      As for the rest, though, I'll concede that the sample size is pretty small of him playing with the starters. Given a full season, I've no doubt he'd improve. But if people watched him with the starters and thought "wow, that's a well-run offense" then we're watching different games.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

        Thought I should add this as a reminder to those who may have forgot. We've been over this a couple times in other threads.

        Regardless as to what you think of DC and Hill as PGs, this following stat does not have to change your opinion on it. There's a lot more to pointing than running the PnR. With that said, DC is terrible at running the PnR. He was terrible last year. And he was even WORSE in New Orleans.

        You could argue DC is better at the point than Hill because he presses the tempo, or attacks, whatever, but he cannot run the PnR. He's so bad, that he should for the most part avoid being put in that situation.

        http://www.indycornrows.com/2012/2/7...fficult-truths

        Also, that passes the eye test as well. If you watch DC run the PnR, he can't ever make the pass to the player rolling or popping. He just can't.. He gets trapped and the entire play is blown up.

        Comment


        • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I read this multiple times, and yet despite generally agreeing, even I have to admit I can't nail down specifically why I agree.

          Can we work on nailing this down? What exactly does DC do better than Hill when it comes to being a point guard / 'pointing' ?

          About the only thing that comes to mind is Hill takes even longer than DC to initialize something (in terms of dribbling too long).

          I've seen Hill make tougher and flashier passes than DC, yet neither is much of a distributor.

          Neither particularly impresses me at running an offense. Both can run the pick and roll (though neither is terrific and DC seems worse here than he did with the NOH at this; and we just don't run it a lot).

          Both are more likely to try to finish than kick it out when they drive.
          It doesn't come down to skill imo. it's a mindset, DC still thinks and plays more like a point guard even if in a vacuum Hill can emulate particular parts of it at any given time.
          Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

          Comment


          • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

            Look, my goal is not to trash Hill. I like him as a player and I understand that he plays out of position at the moment. Do you remember his corner 3s? Yeah, he cannot shoot those as a PG. He needs to play off the ball to hit those and he's damn good in that role.

            When people were pressuring for Hill to get the starting job over DC, I said that our problem was not DC himself but the way our offensive scheme is set in regards to our PGs. Simply put, our offensive system does not make any favor to our PGs. We don't have the personnel to run the PnR (we substitute it with a post criss-cross) and most of our players hesitate upon ball reception and try to create their own shot and get closer to the basket. We also often use our bigs as middle men in order to make a backdoor pass to Danny or PG. None of these is going to make our PGs look good.

            I'm with able on this. We don't need a traditional PG as long as we play with this offensive plan. We need someone who can defend, bring the ball up court without turning the ball over, hit open shots and not hold the ball a lot (either make the entry pass to Roy or give it to the wings).

            Before the Raptors game I said that these games would serve as answers. And they were answers, indeed. I hope that at least now anyone can see that DC was not our problem. It also showcased that the team needs DC.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
              Look, my goal is not to trash Hill. I like him as a player and I understand that he plays out of position at the moment. Do you remember his corner 3s? Yeah, he cannot shoot those as a PG. He needs to play off the ball to hit those and he's damn good in that role.

              When people were pressuring for Hill to get the starting job over DC, I said that our problem was not DC himself but the way our offensive scheme is set in regards to our PGs. Simply put, our offensive system does not make any favor to our PGs. We don't have the personnel to run the PnR (we substitute it with a post criss-cross) and most of our players hesitate upon ball reception and try to create their own shot and get closer to the basket. We also often use our bigs as middle men in order to make a backdoor pass to Danny or PG. None of these is going to make our PGs look good.

              I'm with able on this. We don't need a traditional PG as long as we play with this offensive plan. We need someone who can defend, bring the ball up court without turning the ball over, hit open shots and not hold the ball a lot (either make the entry pass to Roy or give it to the wings).

              Before the Raptors game I said that these games would serve as answers. And they were answers, indeed. I hope that at least now anyone can see that DC was not our problem. It also showcased that the team needs DC.
              So, with that said do you think DC would be a good, above average PG in another system?

              Comment


              • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
                So, with that said do you think DC would be a good, above average PG in another system?
                Yes. He wouldn't be a difference maker but he will always be a solid, reliable starter, imo.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                  Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                  It doesn't come down to skill imo. it's a mindset, DC still thinks and plays more like a point guard even if in a vacuum Hill can emulate particular parts of it at any given time.
                  "DC still thinks and plays more like a point guard"? I wonder what games are you watching? ..
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    I think we have enough of a sample size to agree that Hill plays best off the ball. His play regressed when he started playing PG on the reserves.

                    As for the rest, though, I'll concede that the sample size is pretty small of him playing with the starters. Given a full season, I've no doubt he'd improve. But if people watched him with the starters and thought "wow, that's a well-run offense" then we're watching different games.
                    Our offense has never been a "well run offense" with either DC, AJ, Lance or Hill, let's stop pretending that Hill replaced the re-encarnation of Steve Nash here, our offense flat out sucks and one of the reason why our offense sucks it's because we don't have a "pure point guard" so out of the "non-pure PG's" that we have I still rather have Hill, better defender, better passer, better in pressure situations.

                    By the way I'm still waiting for Sookie's "poor baby Hill comments" or the "he is too young excuse and didn't have training camp so he needs two more years to acclimate" I guess that only works for AJ and DC I guess
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      Yes. He wouldn't be a difference maker but he will always be a solid, reliable starter, imo.
                      This is how I feel too. Unless you go get a top 5 PG we are fine with DC and Hill. If they go out and get Dragic, Lowry, or any one of the other PG's that people think are upgrades over DC they will see that they won't be any better in this system than DC is.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        Our offense has never been a "well run offense" with either DC, AJ, Lance or Hill, let's stop pretending that Hill replaced the re-encarnation of Steve Nash here, our offense flat out sucks and one of the reason why our offense sucks it's because we don't have a "pure point guard" so out of the "non-pure PG's" that we have I still rather have Hill, better defender, better passer, better in pressure situations.

                        By the way I'm still waiting for Sookie's "poor baby Hill comments" or the "he is too young excuse and didn't have training camp so he needs two more years to acclimate" I guess that only works for AJ and DC I guess
                        No, what needs to stop is your constant extremism. No one is saying that DC is Steve Nash. You are the ONLY one saying that crap. It's stupid, and it bogs down the discussion.

                        If you would actually take the time to read what people are saying, you would probably have a different reaction.

                        DC is not the answer.
                        GH is not the answer.

                        GH is better served off the bench.

                        That's IT. Nothing extreme. No one calling DC the GOAT. NOTHING. Just give it a freaking rest.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                          Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
                          This is how I feel too. Unless you go get a top 5 PG we are fine with DC and Hill. If they go out and get Dragic, Lowry, or any one of the other PG's that people think are upgrades over DC they will see that they won't be any better in this system than DC is.
                          I'd be fine with Dragic or Lowry. They are good players. But I'm fine with DC and Hill as well.

                          As I said our system is not build for PGs. If we manage to get good players to fill our PG rotation and we don't overpay them then I'm fine with it.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            I think we have enough of a sample size to agree that Hill plays best off the ball. His play regressed when he started playing PG on the reserves.

                            As for the rest, though, I'll concede that the sample size is pretty small of him playing with the starters. Given a full season, I've no doubt he'd improve. But if people watched him with the starters and thought "wow, that's a well-run offense" then we're watching different games.
                            Did he truly regress, or is this just like the start of the season when he was a shooting guard and struggling mightily? Hill disappeared multiple times this season, actually (while on the floor).

                            Comment


                            • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                              I simply do not think you guys understand.

                              We have SO much fire power on the first line that we do not need another scorer. In fact having another scorer out there disrupts the flow of EVERY one else. Everyone is used to getting their touches and the ball in certain places.

                              Hill changes all that. I am not saying he is not a better point guard. I honestly do believe he is a better PG than DC. He just does not have a better skill set that meshes with the first line.

                              This is Hills mentality going down the court. Watch the games over and you will see what I am talking about. His eyes are always focused on the rim. This is a scorers mentality. You look at the rim because that is where you want to put the ball. He does not do anything at all to help the other guys get better shots.

                              Hibbert is the one most affected by this. Most sets he does not touch the ball when its in hills control. We simply cannot have this. The ball HAS to be in the hands of hibbert and west every single possession. Our inside presence has to be established early to get that threat. If it is not two things happen. The defense can tighten on the guards which is drastically going to lower your FG% and two hibberts head is going to explode. We ask him to anchor the defense and do everything he can to keep the ball out of the hoop on the other side. If you do not make him feel like part of the team on offense when his FG and passing numbers are great you are going to lose output.

                              Not only that but with the quick shots we are no longer a smash mouth grind it out team. We are running our bigs up and down the court more which in turn is going to = injuries. This is fact when players get tired and try to push on they get injured.

                              I do not see why everyone is wanting to change what is proven to work. We are going to win 40+ games on a condensed schedule. Tell me again, what was our record last year? Or the year before that? This system is working. All we added was 2 bench players and a 30 yo with bad knees. Trust the coaching staff, Vogel clearly knows what he is doing.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                                I think the biggest issue we have is two-fold. Hill isn't an upgrade offensively over DC. I have never believed that. Hill is a better post entry passer, so I prefer him with Hibbert and West. he is also the much better defender, and I don't care if he starts, as long as we aren't getting killed by the opposing PG out of the gate, who cares. He needs to finish games with the starting unit however for his defense alone. Defense is the entire reason I would pair Hill with the starters.

                                As for DC, I think he would excel in the second unit where pushing the tempo really makes our depth that much better than the other teams'. He and Barbosa should be electric with a little more time together. I have always said that DC would be the best backup PG in the league. He is too good to be a second unit guy, but not good enough to be the answer as the starter. His PnR defense is probably the worst I have ever seen from a starting PG. I'm not trying to bash him, but his size kills him defending it. This discussion is almost moot at this point in the season though.
                                "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X