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 Since86 View Post
    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.
    I never said we has Steve Nash, people have told me that his numbers are close to Steve Nash in his third year reason why we should expect or hope for DC to be like him one day, some of the same people that are getting on Hill for "not playing well in his first start" and nope I'm not going to waste my time looking for a post or posts that probe my point.

    By the way good job in trying to make a point by calling somebody "extremist", I get it now "extremist" is the new "hater" or "team hater" good job in changing to new words that makes it less boring around here.
    @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 Hicks View Post
      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).
      Yet people bashed Brandon Rush for the same thing, and he played better defense. Comparable players, just one gets bashed and the other is a savior. Some day I will let it go, but I just don't know what to do with my Rush jersey now.
      "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


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

        Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
        but I just don't know what to do with my Rush jersey now.
        Kill it. Burn it with fire.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          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.
          Perfect and concise analysis. There are only a few 'pure' PG's in the league,who are proven successes: Nash, Kidd, D.Williams, Andre Miller, and a few others. The majority of PG's are in the mould of DC and Hill, they do everything but not exceptionally well.

          Unless we can get a 'pure' PG, we are just as well off with what we have given the system we play here.

          PG is not this teams big need going forward.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
            . 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.
            You hit the nail on the head with me on post entry passing. Him and Paul are probably are two best entry passers. DC seems undecided at times because I believe his height reduces his window of opportunity. This leads to a collapse in ball movement.
            I want to see the ball go low 80 percent of the time with efficiency. Because DC has troubles with this, you see Paul initiating the high low action at times because he can get the ball high enough for Roy to grab. However, this usually happens at the end of the shot clock because DC had to make the decision to move the ball around the perimeter or down to David first.
            We don't need a true PG on this team because our entire starting 5 out side of DC averages 2 assists a game. We need someone that can dump the ball down low and be a facilitator. DC is good at being a facilitator or in football terms a game manager. This is exactly what George brings but he also has the ability to dump it down low and play above average defense.
            These are my reasons why George should be starting in the playoffs. Plus I would love to see DC run other teams into the ground with Barbosa on the second team. just my two cents.

            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
              Clearly the offense isn't as bad as that. A team cannot win as many games as the Pacers have with a non-dominant defense and a bad offense. And when you look at the stats, you can see this isn't true either. The Pacers are tied for 5th in the NBA in points per shot. That's probably overstating their offensive efficiency, but they are so good at getting to the free throw line that using field goal percentage or adjusted field goal percentage as a measure of their offense would be much worse. They are 15th in the NBA and 4th in the East in points per game.

              Would upgrading the point guard upgrade the offense? Absolutely. But the offense isn't broken badly right now either. And my speculation is that most of that is from the first unit. The last couple months it has appeared that the first unit has been better on the offensive end that the defensive end, and the reverse is true for the second unit. But I don't have a breakdown by lineup to be able to prove that part of it. But the offense is clearly average or better overall.

              Comment


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

                the basic premise of this post is that there is nothing wrong with DC's game that being 3 inches taller wouldn't cure. the things that are wrong with DC as a PG are becaue he lacks size, nothing to do with his skill level.

                DC has a better handle. a much better handle. especially in pressure or pressuring situations.

                DC has a better mid-range game.

                DC sees the floor better. this is a weakness for both players, imo. neither of them seems to see the floor down court. and both have tunnel vision going to the basket. but DC sees more of the floor and, because he has a better handle, seems to be better at getting other guys the ball. playing lots of minutes, GH seems to be a bit of a black hole in the sense tyler is. willing to pass, but just not always able to see the open guy.

                GH is a better 3 pt shooter, but not by much. both seem capable, but neither of them is a reggie miller type shooter.

                DC runs the offense better. he seems more willing/able to make the pass and cut. GH seems to hold on to the ball more, thus getting caught with the ball at the end of the shot clock. the pairing of GH and leandro minimizes this some, imo. the pairing of two combo/semi-PG's works.

                GH is better at the PnR. DC has trouble running his man into the pick. now either the pick is bad or DC can't force the guy into the pick. i think this is an area where DC's lack of size really hurts him. bigger guys can bull their way to the picker. but DC just isn't big enough to do that.

                GH is a better defender. a much better defender. better size and strength and those long long arms help him guard guys that DC just cannot. especially in the post.

                DC is faster with and without the ball. if the pacer bigs were better at rebounding and getting the ball out, DC's speed would be more of an asset. GH is fast, real fast, but DC is faster. especially with the ball.

                this is not a definitive list, just some observations to help discussion. probably too much seeing what i want to see, but that is the way of things.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  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.
                  I actually think that DC has a better chance of being the answer than GH, but agreed... both at this point seem like backups to a championship team made up of folks like Hibbert, Granger, and George.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    I never said we has Steve Nash, people have told me that his numbers are close to Steve Nash in his third year reason why we should expect or hope for DC to be like him one day, some of the same people that are getting on Hill for "not playing well in his first start" and nope I'm not going to waste my time looking for a post or posts that probe my point.

                    By the way good job in trying to make a point by calling somebody "extremist", I get it now "extremist" is the new "hater" or "team hater" good job in changing to new words that makes it less boring around here.
                    Who has said that. Please show me where in THIS thread that's been said.

                    Someone once told me the world is flat, so I think I'll rail on that "someone" every opportunity.


                    This is the first time that you've been called out for your extreme positions, and it's not the first time that you've came back with a nameless "someone."

                    If you don't want to be called an extremist, then stop being extreme. I'm going to call a spade a spade, and your an extremist. To quote Lucky Number Slevin

                    The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle.
                    Last edited by Since86; 04-13-2012, 12:54 PM.
                    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 Since86 View Post
                      Who has said that. Please show me where in THIS thread that's been said.

                      Someone once told me the world is flat, so I think I'll rail on that "someone" every opportunity.


                      This is the first time that you've been called out for your extreme positions, and it's not the first time that you've came back with a nameless "someone."

                      If you don't want to be called an extremist, then stop being extreme. I'm going to call a spade a spade, and your an extremist. To quote Lucky Number Slevin
                      A horse calling a horse a horse

                      I have a feeling that I know where are you getting all those ideas in how to call people, "extremist", "hater", I don't think is going to be that long before you start using "Pacers terrorist" or "Pacers enemies" Keep up the good work though.....
                      @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

                        Kinda what I thought. When asked to backup your claims you go off in another direction.
                        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

                          I don't understand why so many people are saying Hill had bad games. He really didn't; he played fairly well and it was just hard to tell. He just didn't do anything of note but some timely scoring. In fact, it was after Price tried to give the game away against the Cavs that Hill and Granger came in to mop up the mess.

                          We really don't have a solid basis for comparing the two anyway; We've seen DC backed up by George Hill, DC backed up by Price with George Hill at the backup 2, and George HIll backed up by Price. Because if DC couldn't figure out how to play well with Barbosa and the 2nd unit it's kind of a moot point anyway. The one solid thing I've seen is that both Hill and Collison are better than AJ Price. Price gets trigger happy, but he's a terrible shooter.

                          It's too late to change things up anyway, and it's possible by the time next season starts it will be a non-issue. I happen to think Hill would flourish if we went to a 9 man rotation and he was given 30-32 minutes a game.
                          Last edited by aamcguy; 04-13-2012, 02:01 PM.
                          Time for a new sig.

                          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
                            Dude, your hair-trigger bitterness is absolutely astounding to me. Who's talking about Sookie? Why is she even part of the conversation? And who's pretending DC is Steve Nash? Where does this stuff even come from?

                            Back on topic... How can you say Hill is better in pressure situations after the last game? He was awful under pressure. Couldn't initiate the offense, missed 3 free throws with seconds left in the game.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                              the basic premise of this post is that there is nothing wrong with DC's game that being 3 inches taller wouldn't cure.
                              I dunno about "nothing" but I'd certainly feel a lot better about him as a long-term solution.

                              Originally posted by xIndy
                              GH is a better 3 pt shooter, but not by much.
                              The stats do not back this up.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                                I don't understand why so many people are saying Hill had bad games. He really didn't; he played fairly well and it was just hard to tell.
                                He had a decent line, if you look at the box score. But whenever he was running the point, the offense really ground to a halt. Not that it was terribly fluid to begin with, but it was noticeably worse with Hill.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X