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

  • #31
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Idk, but him and PG on the wings for defense would of been crazy

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

      He's developed quite well under the Spurs, George Hill made sense at the time with both PG and Danny. Hindsight is 20/20, I don't really look at it as a Bird/Morway mistake, just the way things bounce.

      Anyway, that was three years ago.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

        Love George Hill, but still hate the trade. It made way more sense to keep Leonard to guard LeBron, so Paul wouldn't have to.

        And I don't buy the too many wings argument. You take the best player available and make room for him. Plus Rush was on his way out and Lance hadn't proven anything.

        A Granger/George/Leonard trio would've been real solid. We'd have problems @ point guard, but we still do so nothing was fixed.
        Last edited by imawhat; 06-02-2014, 11:44 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

          Would the Cavs be better if they kept Danny Green?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            Love George Hill, but still hate the trade. It made way more sense to keep Leonard to guard LeBron, so Paul wouldn't have to.

            And I don't buy the too many wings argument. You take the best player available and make room for him. Plus Rush was on his way out and Lance hadn't proven anything.

            A Granger/George/Leonard trio would've been real solid. We'd have problems @ point guard, but we still do so nothing was fixed.
            We weren't worried about guarding Lebron in the playoffs. We had just made the playoffs for the first time in a long time and needed vets at the time.

            Ive made this point a few times but Leonard wouldn't be the same player as a Pacer as he is for the Spurs. I feel it would have been a Gerald Wallace like situation. Wallace languished on the bench after being drafted by the Kings. Once he was traded to the Bobcats and got to play in a system that fits him, he did very well. Right now Leonard is the 4th option on a team with really good offensive talent within a system that capitalizing on that talent tremendously. He wouldn't have gotten that here.

            Also for all the complaints about the trade, we made the ECF twice since the trade (with a trip to the 2nd round as well) since then--so we've seen our share of success

            Im not saying Hill is better than Leonard (though I do feel that Leonard is a tad overrated). But Leonard wouldn't fit here nearly as well as he does in SA
            Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 06-08-2014, 06:39 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              We weren't worried about guarding Lebron in the playoffs. We had just made the playoffs for the first time in a long time and needed vets at the time.

              Ive made this point a few times but Leonard wouldn't be the same player as a Pacer as he is for the Spurs. I feel it would have been a Gerald Wallace like situation. Wallace languished on the bench after being drafted by the Kings. Once he was traded to the Bobcats and got to play in a system that fits him, he did very well. Right now Leonard is the 4th option on a team with really hood offensive talent within a system that capitalizing on that talent tremendously. He wouldn't have gotten that here.

              Also for all the complaints about the trade, we made the ECF twice since the trade (with a trip to the 2nd round as well) since then--so we've seen our share of success

              Im not saying Hill is better than Leonard (though I do feel that Leonard is a tad overrated). But Leonard wouldn't fit here nearly as well as he does in SA
              I tend to agree. We needed a solid veteran PG more than another wing. Position of need vs position of strength. Proven commodity vs fresh to the league rookie. There's the matter of who we would've gotten at the point otherwise.

              I would like Leonard for sure, but there's way too many variables to make a guess on what'd be better. Also tend to think he wouldn't play as well here. I'm not even sure I'd trade them for each other today. Unless Lance walks, the. It's an interesting decision.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson
                We weren't worried about guarding LeBron in the playoffs....

                And that's easily my biggest complaint about the trade. When you don't have the best player (especially with no player in the top 10), a major part of your strategy needs to be on stopping the best player.

                How many complaints were there about Paul guarding LeBron? He played poorly all series until he could spend time on Wade. Leonard would've eased pressure defensively for Paul all season. And offensively he plays without play calls. He would've fit in fine here.

                All of our young talent has developed here. Kawhi would've been fine. And at the time, we had a shooting guard in a point guard's body starting in Collison. Hill duplicated that (with better defense and clutch play), and here we are three years later with the same problems with passing, ball handling and running the offense.

                We could have strongly improved our wing rotation and shored up one of our biggest weaknesses. Instead we marginally improved our point guard play while addressing no weaknesses. And that's why I hated the trade then and why I still do.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                  Well if you've been watching the last two finals between the Spurs and Heat, Leonard can't really guard Lebron very well anyways.

                  But also I dont think you build a team specifically to beat the best players. Lebron was still on the Cavs when we made that trade and we already drafted a defensive minded wing in Paul George, so why would we have needed yet another wing? Hindsight is always 20/20, but with our recent success since the trade-- its hard to argue the results.

                  Lastly its easy to say he would've developed fine, but you just dont know. He started from day one on S, was coached by an all time great, and was mentored by 3 Hall of Famers. He wouldn't have had any of those luxuries here. He wouldnt have started his rookie year, and we dont know if he'd end up starting next yr. Since we are playing the what if game, what if Danny doesn't get hurt, what if Lance would've been our 6th man, etc. We don't know if or how Leonard would've developed or fit in with this group.

                  The player that he is now is a nice piece on the Spurs, but he's not a world beater. I just dont think adding Leonard and subtracting Hill puts us over the top.
                  Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 06-08-2014, 11:51 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                    For what it's worth, a couple people I was watching the game with tonight felt Paul George did a better job defending Lebron than Kawhi Leonard has done so far this series. They have no bias towards or against either player or team.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                      The Spurs have the same problem the Pacers have...if George/Leonard guards LeBron, they don't have a good offensive game. The Pacers eventually decided to take PG off LeBron for game 5 and he had a monster game (the fouls helped too). The Spurs are basically sacrificing Leonard to be a 3 point shooter/LeBron defender that may limit him to 25-35 points, it's not worth it in the end. The Spurs have even worse defenders than the Pacers outside of Leonard so it's harder for them to make that sacrifice, Diaw is the only other guy that could even possibly guard him ok. The Spurs have way more offensive weapons though, so Parker and Ginobili and the rest have to step up and they can.
                      "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                      ----------------- Reggie Miller

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                        Danny, PG, Kawi....... could not have worked, wasn't supposed to work, was why he was traded. You have to draft for other team's needs if it is what looks best for you.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                          Agree with all posters who said we drafter FOR San Antonio; I don't think we would have taken him.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            No crystal ball, but you'd assume collison would be kept around as the starting point guard.

                            It's obviously a win on talent but it's unfair considering they drafted Leonard FOR the spurs. No telling who they would have picked for themselves. Not likely another SF.

                            I'd swear I read something a year or more ago where Bird said Leonard would have been the Pacers pick.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post

                              I remember reading that if the Pacers didn't trade for Hill they were planning on drafting Leonard for themselves anyway.

                              Same hear.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                                The real point is Hill isnt better than Leonard and Leonard hasn't reached his zenith yet and Hill has.

                                Look at the other players who were available after the 15 th pick. Vucevic, Shumpert, Faried, Reggie Jackson, Jimmy Bulter, and Parsons to name a few who were drafted after Leonard. Some at positions the Pacers could use now.

                                Bird has tunnel vision when he wants something, prime example Peja, ended up being a half year rental. Like with Hill, Bird always wanted Peja too, and both were traded for having expiring contracts. Pacers wouldn't overpay for Peja, smart move, but did overpay for Hill, not smart.

                                Lets see if Bird overpays to keep his pet Stephenson.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X