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

Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

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

  • Ace E.Anderson
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    I don't think anybody questions that he would be a good player here. He's obviously a good player with a good work ethic. AT WORST he would have been an extra wing defender, who could play some small ball 4 when we needed. I just don't think he would be nearly as good here with the Pacers. He just would've never had the opportunity to play 30+ mpg unless he's cutting into Lance' s time from the last two years - which would have stunted Lance's development.

    I agree though, NOBODY should question Leonard's skills, or work ethic. He would have been a good player wherever he went. Again, I just doubt he's the total product we just saw have 3 really good games in the finals.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    GM's don't have the benefit of three year hindsight when they make moves. We needed vets after that Chicago series when our youth and inexperience prevented us from closing out games. Bird went out and got an old guy in West and a player in Hill who spent three years learning the ropes in a world class Spur organization. I think those Spur characteristics that Hill brought really helped out guys like PG. After that Chicago series, we didn't need more rookies. We needed vets.

    Getting a proven good player for the 15th pick in the draft was pretty good value for the Pacers. It was a very safe play. When you trade a draft pick for a proven player, sometimes the draft pick ends up being a bust and you come out looking like a genius. Other times, the draft pick becomes a Finals MVP in year 3. It's certainly tough not to play the "what if" game when watching Leonard win the Finals MVP, but it was a great trade for the Pacers at the time. That being said, I think that people are kidding themselves at this point if they don't think that Leonard would have been very good here. He might not have won a Finals MVP in year three here, but he still would have been a damn good player. The guy is just really good.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-17-2014, 12:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bball
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Let's try this with a real life scenario.

    Gus drives a 2014 Audi A6. Gus loses his job and can no longer afford payments. Gus trades in his Audi for a 2002 Audi. Who would argue Gus likes his 2002 Audi more than his 2014? Need more information you say? No you don't. Gus got rid of his 2014 and picked a 2002, so he automatically likes his 2002 better. Forget his payment troubles forced him into the decision, no, he just liked that 2002 more.

    Could Gus like his 2002 better than his 2014? Sure! But you're gonna have to actually list reasons other than simply stating he made the switch so therefore he likes his 2002 better.

    It's a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation does not prove causation).

    Actually Gus traded his 2014 Audi for a Toyota Highlander....

    Leave a comment:


  • Ransom
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    I also remember Jim Kelly and the Bills.
    Heck, the Bills might be better remembered than the Giants and Washington team they lost to the first two years.
    Last edited by Ransom; 06-23-2014, 03:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Justin Tyme
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Ransom View Post

    You remembered the Vikings just now. I mean, I'm just saying...

    I also remember Jim Kelly and the Bills.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ransom
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    I'm not interested in being the Vikings of the Fran Tarkington era... good enough to make the Super Bowl numerous times but never good enough to win it. Attaboys don't get it. People don't remember who comes in second, they only remember the winners.
    You remembered the Vikings just now. I mean, I'm just saying...

    Leave a comment:


  • Justin Tyme
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    I can agree with a lot of this. Hill is not a prototypical PG. Most starting PG's in the league aren't anymore to be honest. But I think it's more than possible that we could win a championship with Hill starting at the point. He's exactly the type of 3-D Lead Guard that's on a championship team. (Dennis Johnson, BJ Armstron, Kenny Smith, Derek Fisher, Billups, Terry, Chalmers) To say we can't win a championship because Hill is our PG is no more true than saying we can't win a championship with PG as our best player.

    We have gotten to two straight ECF with Hill as our PG. This isn't to say changes shouldn't be made, or talked about - but it's not as if we haven't advanced to the finals BECAUSE of George Hill. The fact that he's raised his averages during the playoffs every year he's here attests to that.

    I'm not interested in being the Vikings of the Fran Tarkington era... good enough to make the Super Bowl numerous times but never good enough to win it. Attaboys don't get it. People don't remember who comes in second, they only remember the winners.

    Leave a comment:


  • Justin Tyme
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    No one I know of thought we were getting a starting point guard when we traded for George Hill. Now you could argue that he isn't really starting point guard quality, but the fact is he has been the starting point guard on a team that has gotten to the ECF two straight years. That is worth a lot more than the average 15th first round pick.

    Yes, and if he was a better at being a PG maybe it could of been the Pacers hoisting a trophy or at least playing SA for the championship.

    $64,000 question is, what position did Walsh think Hill would be playing when he re-signed Hill? Obviously, starting PG as he traded DC and brought in Augustin as b/u PG. Why give 8 mil for a player to be the starting PG when he wasn't a true PG nor had the skills of a PG?

    I'm not knocking Hill's BB skills, just his PG skills which he didn't have. What irks me is that Walsh had salary cap and wasted it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ace E.Anderson
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    I never said he's INEPT, I said the Pacers will never win a championship with Hill as the starting PG. Hill is a SG in a PG body with a SG mentality. It isn't working. Hill plays best off the ball not as a PG. It's hard plugging a round hole with a square peg. There are combo guards that can do a good job playing the PG role, but "unfortunately" George Hill isn't one of them.
    I can agree with a lot of this. Hill is not a prototypical PG. Most starting PG's in the league aren't anymore to be honest. But I think it's more than possible that we could win a championship with Hill starting at the point. He's exactly the type of 3-D Lead Guard that's on a championship team. (Dennis Johnson, BJ Armstron, Kenny Smith, Derek Fisher, Billups, Terry, Chalmers) To say we can't win a championship because Hill is our PG is no more true than saying we can't win a championship with PG as our best player.

    We have gotten to two straight ECF with Hill as our PG. This isn't to say changes shouldn't be made, or talked about - but it's not as if we haven't advanced to the finals BECAUSE of George Hill. The fact that he's raised his averages during the playoffs every year he's here attests to that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Justin Tyme
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    You certainly can stick to your take of them liking his potential, but why not at least acknowledge all of the reports regarding how it was a tough decision to be made? I think 86 was right in that the biggest reason why they looked to trade Hill was because they knew how much money it would cost to keep him. When you add the fact they were going to be able to add a bigger wing defender (which they lacked at the time) on a rookie contract, it helped make the decision even easier.

    Potential not withstanding, Leonard was a small ball 4 in college. He had basically zero perimeter game, and it was only last year that he showed glimpses of being the shooter that he is (much credit goes to him for developing that shot). The Spurs nor any other team were thinking he would come in and be a "scorer". He's a very good player who has the perfect role for his skill set. But looking back on draft night, I don't think the Leonard we see today is the Leonard the Spurs thought they would get only because he's a completely different player than he was in college.

    Exactly what position did Hill play in college?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kid Minneapolis
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    I already told you comparing him now to his rookie year is pointless. He was barely an NBA player his rookie year.

    He's not more in control, he's just more in tune to playing at an NBA speed. His feel for the game hasn't changed at all. He still freelances way too often.
    Why on earth would that be pointless. That's like saying, "I'm validating that he hasn't improved at all because we're not going to count all the improvement he's made since he first entered the league." That's my entire point -- that he's grown as a player, which I can't tell if you're agreeing with or not when you make statements that he's basically the same player, but he's working within the system now, which is exactly what I'm saying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Justin Tyme
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by CreekShow View Post

    Put Kawhi on a team like Cleveland or somewhere else that'd he be a #2 option and this thread wouldnt exist

    Bottom line is, he'd still be better than Hill!

    Leave a comment:


  • Justin Tyme
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    Whether you personally like him or not, Hill was a BIG part of keeping that team afloat. He had a few game winning shots (@TOR, @ Lakers, @ NO Hornets) and was averaging nearly 16 a game through November/December.

    He then chipped in another 15 ppg during the playoff run that year.

    Whether or not he's a starting PG on a championship team could be debatable but this idea that he's completely inept and hasn't contributed to this teams success in a big way since his arrival is trivial. Easily the most under appreciated player within this forum IMO.

    I never said he's INEPT, I said the Pacers will never win a championship with Hill as the starting PG. Hill is a SG in a PG body with a SG mentality. It isn't working. Hill plays best off the ball not as a PG. It's hard plugging a round hole with a square peg. There are combo guards that can do a good job playing the PG role, but "unfortunately" George Hill isn't one of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kstat
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    I think his ability to play against LeBron in a vacuum and not be intimidated or awed by him is pretty special. His numbers won't ever wow you, though. He still has yet to score 30 in an NBA game in 3 seasons.

    Doesn't mean he isn't a fantastic player, though. He absolutely is. He doesn't have Paul George's natural ability but George is still trying to develop the level of intensity that Leonard has had since day one. His intangibles are off the charts good.

    I said at the beginning of the ECF thread that Paul George had to play LeBron James with a level of disdain in order to overcome him. That's exactly the kind of attitude Leonard played with the last 3 games of the finals. He treated LeBron as if LeBron was the inferior player, and the rest of the spurs fed off of that.
    Last edited by Kstat; 06-16-2014, 04:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TinManJoshua
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    I don't know that the Pacers really "lost" the trade because they got exactly what they expected from George Hill.

    Did the Spurs get the better player? Not even close. I don't know that it really impacts how you look back in the deal, though.
    This is exactly my point. A lot of people want to weep and gnash about the tragedy that was trading away a Finals MVP that averaged 15 points and 6 rebounds for the entirety of the playoffs.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X