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

  • #31
    Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

    We're 4-1 and sit atop the Central Division, so naturally we should be switching up the starting line-up.....

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

      I think you can't go too wrong either way. All I need to know about Hill as a PG is that Gregg Poppovich trusted him at that position when Tony Parker wasn't available, and he produced while he was there.

      As for Darren, I've been impressed with his effort and willingness to NOT be a score first point guard this season. I didn't expect that, and I'll say again this change in play has impressed me.

      Neither will ever be confused with Mark Jackson, but both are serviceable at running the point. Both can run the pick and roll well. Defensively, you have to favor Hill, but DC has had many nice plays himself thus far, so it's not a landslide victory for Hill at this point.

      I think in the bigger picture, when chemistry has been established, Hill may yet prove to be the better player to start at the one, but DC is making a strong case to just leave this alone, and it's not like Hill will meltdown having to be a combo guard off the bench. He's ready, available, and Frank isn't afraid to use him.

      So I'm cool either way at the moment, which is why I voted for the status quo.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

        It really depends on match ups. Obviously if the opponent is able to post Collison at will, Hill might be a better option. I am not a big fan of them playing together unless the other team is also running a very small lineup.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

          A Hill-PG backcourt would slowdown the ball movement more than a DC-PG backcourt would. We would just further intrench the iso and feeding to the post that hasn't been very successful with the first unit so far. We need DC to run the PnP and PnR.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            I think you can't go too wrong either way. All I need to know about Hill as a PG is that Gregg Poppovich trusted him at that position when Tony Parker wasn't available, and he produced while he was there.
            I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions about George Hill's point guard abilities from that. Pop would always make sure to play Hill with Parker or Ginobili at all times. See SA's top 5-man units:

            http://www.82games.com/1011/1011SAS2.HTM

            Of the top 20 5-man units used by San Antonio, only #18 (Hill-Neal-Jefferson-Bonner-McDyess) features a lineup where Hill is the main point guard when Manu is not playing alongside him.

            Anyway, Hill's role in SA's offense is basically to pass the ball to Parker or Ginobili and drift to the side to try to get the corner 3. Obviously the Pacers are asking Hill to do more, and I have no problems with Vogel experimenting in the early season with Hill at PG. IMO, it's not working very well, so I think it's fair to expect adjustments at some point.

            Price is a bit stuck at the moment, since the Pacers are currently experimenting with Hill and Lance at the PG spot. I think he's the fallback as the backup PG though, so I'm thinking he'll get his chance sooner or later, hopefully sooner.
            Last edited by wintermute; 01-03-2012, 03:41 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
              I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions about George Hill's point guard abilities from that. Pop would always make sure to play Hill with Parker or Ginobili at all times. See SA's top 5-man units:

              http://www.82games.com/1011/1011SAS2.HTM

              Of the top 20 5-man units used by San Antonio, only #18 (Hill-Neal-Jefferson-Bonner-McDyess) features a lineup where Hill is the main point guard when Manu is not playing alongside him.

              Anyway, Hill's role in SA's offense is basically to pass the ball to Parker or Ginobili and drift to the side to try to get the corner 3. Obviously the Pacers are asking Hill to do more, and I have no problems with Vogel experimenting in the early season with Hill at PG. IMO, it's not working very well, so I think it's fair to expect adjustments at some point.

              Price is a bit stuck at the moment, since the Pacers are currently experimenting with Hill and Lance at the PG spot. I think he's the fallback as the backup PG though, so I'm thinking he'll get his chance sooner or later, hopefully sooner.
              I agree with this. It's interesting/fun to read the back and forth on this thread, because we've all had the same 5 games to watch, and people are reading players like Hill differently. I see low skill levels for most of the things I'd expect of a PG (coordinate set plays, passing, floor vision), but good/great perimeter defense, perimeter shooting, and basket attack skills. Seems more SG to me, and the SA games I've been able to catch (5-6 over past 3 years) speak the same way to me about him.

              Seems like a good complement to more of a pure PG than a PG.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                DC has been our most consistently good player so far. I didn't expect this out of him. That said, I will always be wary of a 160 pound guy heading up a defensive stand against certain teams, especially ones with size. I don't think our roster is so set in stone that adjustments can't be made based on matchups. We have seen some small ball against Detroit and New Jersey that has been quite effective. Obviously, you don't just pull DC out of the starting lineup when he's in a groove. But you also realize that you have options and have to be flexible with them.
                You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                  I would actually go as far as saying I would rather have Collison, Lance and even Price at point before Hill.

                  Collison has improved both his D and passing this year. I don't think he is a great player by any means but I think he is at least an average starting PG, which is a lot better then we had before. The way some of you guys talk you act like he's at the bottom of the list, which is ridiculous imo.

                  Hill just is not a strong passer imo, while I believe he is solid at handling and taking care of the ball, I just don't see the passing ability and vision of a PG at all. Let me put it to you this way, his passing numbers are mediocore even for a SG. Don't get me wrong, I love him as our 6th man, just not as a starter, and def not starting at PG.
                  Did you know Antonio and Dale aren’t actually brothers?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                    Originally posted by TheDavisBrothers View Post
                    I would actually go as far as saying I would rather have Collison, Lance and even Price at point before Hill.

                    Collison has improved both his D and passing this year. I don't think he is a great player by any means but I think he is at least an average starting PG, which is a lot better then we had before. The way some of you guys talk you act like he's at the bottom of the list, which is ridiculous imo.

                    Hill just is not a strong passer imo, while I believe he is solid at handling and taking care of the ball, I just don't see the passing ability and vision of a PG at all. Let me put it to you this way, his passing numbers are mediocore even for a SG. Don't get me wrong, I love him as our 6th man, just not as a starter, and def not starting at PG.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                      Collison has actually been pretty pass first this year. He hasn't really looked for his shot at all, and has moved the ball around on offense. Getting 7 apg out of an offense that has missed so many shots so far this year bodes pretty well for him. He's also been good defensively. Hill can defend the PG spot on certain nights when a giant PG is looking to post up, but honestly not many PG's are good at that and if they are just trying to go 1v1 with DC it bogs down the opponents offense and doesn't even always work due to the lack of post skills from most point guards.

                      Check DC's plus minus, so far this year we simply work best when DC is running the point, and his relatively heavy minutes despite numerous options at the "1" suggest that Frank Vogel sees the same thing.

                      Wintermute was correct in his observation. Point guards like Hill work when you have a guy like Ginobli, or even parker at the off guard who can facilitate from the two position. We don't have that. Hill is a good scorer, and very nice defender, but more often than not this year he holds the ball till the end of the shot clock and takes the shot himself when playing PG. He is an adequate passer talent wise, and he's made some nice plays in the pick and roll, but he isn't natually a PG, he doesn't think like one, and it would be unfair to both he and DC, who is playing great, to thrust him into a role he's uncomfortable in, just as he's getting into a groove here in the last couple of games.
                      Last edited by daschysta; 01-03-2012, 06:13 PM.
                      Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                        It's an interesting question, mattie, but I didn't vote in the poll either. Neither of those options express my position.

                        To truly gauge the board's opinion, maybe something like this would work better:

                        1. Start Collison and give Hill most of the backup PG minutes.
                        2. Start Hill and give Collison most of the backup minutes.
                        3. Start Collison and give Hill most of the backup SG minutes.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                          Collison has been pretty good.

                          From what I've seen, Hill cannot run a team. He just dribbles the damn ball. He should be playing SG. Lance is more of a point than Hill, which isn't saying much.
                          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                            Hill isnt even a good SG lol

                            strong poll results

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions about George Hill's point guard abilities from that. Pop would always make sure to play Hill with Parker or Ginobili at all times. See SA's top 5-man units:

                              http://www.82games.com/1011/1011SAS2.HTM

                              Of the top 20 5-man units used by San Antonio, only #18 (Hill-Neal-Jefferson-Bonner-McDyess) features a lineup where Hill is the main point guard when Manu is not playing alongside him.

                              Anyway, Hill's role in SA's offense is basically to pass the ball to Parker or Ginobili and drift to the side to try to get the corner 3. Obviously the Pacers are asking Hill to do more, and I have no problems with Vogel experimenting in the early season with Hill at PG. IMO, it's not working very well, so I think it's fair to expect adjustments at some point.

                              Price is a bit stuck at the moment, since the Pacers are currently experimenting with Hill and Lance at the PG spot. I think he's the fallback as the backup PG though, so I'm thinking he'll get his chance sooner or later, hopefully sooner.
                              Definitely good points. I just think there must be more to it than that. I mean he doesn't just stick any shooting guard into that position, Manu or not, on a regular high-minute basis, does he?

                              The top two 5-mans are Parker and Manu, but no one would take that to mean Tony isn't a point guard.

                              But that does take us back to where Hill often would bring the ball up then pass and cut, so I totally hear you.

                              I just think since neither Darren or Hill is a true floor general, neither is a great passer, that they remain comparable in that both are scorers, both at least try to give up the ball rather than take a ton of drives/shots (at least 2012 DC, not really 2011 DC), both seem comfortable and capable in the pick and roll, both put up an effort on defense (although Hill seems very good at this, and DC only serviceable). So that's why I still feel you can compare them.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                                Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                                DC has been our most consistently good player so far. I didn't expect this out of him. That said, I will always be wary of a 160 pound guy heading up a defensive stand against certain teams, especially ones with size. I don't think our roster is so set in stone that adjustments can't be made based on matchups. We have seen some small ball against Detroit and New Jersey that has been quite effective. Obviously, you don't just pull DC out of the starting lineup when he's in a groove. But you also realize that you have options and have to be flexible with them.
                                Hill's superior size and superior defense are what keeps tempting me to push for him as the staring point guard. Those are huge assets that DC simply cannot match.

                                But that aside, I have to again commend Darren for obviously trying very hard to be what this team needs and to back away from how he played last season (score first, score second, then oh yeah run the team if he can).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X