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

  • #76
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    Leonard is nice, but he's in a hechuva system... Hill is in a pretty bad spot in terms of fitting his strengths.

    George Hill himself looked like a stud in San Antonio.
    Hill's Indy numbers are virtually identical to what he put up in SA.

    Hill would never be any better than the fourth best player on a good team. That's his ceiling. Leonard OTOH is showing that he can actually be the best player on a championship team at just 22 years of age. Sure the system is a major factor, but I don't see Boris Diaw or Patti Mills on the verge of a Finals MVP. Leonard is a hell of a player and his success goes way beyond the system. Also, our system has been pretty good for wings in recent years. Granger, PG, and Lance have all had good seasons under Vogel. There is no reason to think that Leonard couldn't have been a stud here either.

    That being said, GM's don't have the benefit of three year hindsight when they make moves. At the time it was a pretty good trade for us. After the Chicago series, we needed veteran playmakers. Our biggest weakness in that series was that we were a young team who couldn't get baskets in crucial crunch time situations. Thus, Bird went out and got Hill and West. At the time, we didn't need yet another rookie. But it's hard to deny at this point that having Leonard right now would be way better than having Hill right now. In hindsight, the best thing would have been to trade Granger for a point guard while he still had value. Oh well, GM's don't have the benefit of the hindsight when they make moves. Overall, Bird has done a hell of a job.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

      would we better with Grep Popovich?

      that's the question

      the easy question
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Hill's Indy numbers are virtually identical to what he put up in SA.

        Hill would never be any better than the fourth best player on a good team. That's his ceiling. Leonard OTOH is showing that he can actually be the best player on a championship team at just 22 years of age. Sure the system is a major factor, but I don't see Boris Diaw or Patti Mills on the verge of a Finals MVP. Leonard is a hell of a player and his success goes way beyond the system. Also, our system has been pretty good for wings in recent years. Granger, PG, and Lance have all had good seasons under Vogel. There is no reason to think that Leonard couldn't have been a stud here either.

        That being said, GM's don't have the benefit of three year hindsight when they make moves. At the time it was a pretty good trade for us. After the Chicago series, we needed veteran playmakers. Our biggest weakness in that series was that we were a young team who couldn't get baskets in crucial crunch time situations. Thus, Bird went out and got Hill and West. At the time, we didn't need yet another rookie. But it's hard to deny at this point that having Leonard right now would be way better than having Hill right now. In hindsight, the best thing would have been to trade Granger for a point guard while he still had value. Oh well, GM's don't have the benefit of the hindsight when they make moves. Overall, Bird has done a hell of a job.
        Hill had some massive playoff games in S.A. He routinely played a similar role in that team.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
          Hill had some massive playoff games in S.A. He routinely played a similar role in that team.
          He's had some monster playoff games for the Pacers too (particularly 2013). Regardless, his San Antonio regular season and playoff averages are virtually identical to what he has done in Indy.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

            Well.. this thread gets new life....
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

              Wow we traded away the nba finals mvp.. A 22 year old that beat the team we were trying to for the past 3 years. I feel sick
              Impossible Is Nothing

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                would we better with Grep Popovich?

                that's the question

                the easy question
                Every team would be better with Pop so yeah
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                  I don't understand why this is even a question. If you transplanted G. Hill now with K. Leonard now, than of course yes. But having 3 years under G. Popovich would make any guy look amazing because Pop is that good. He made Boris ****ing Diaw look like a top 10 bench player. That alone should make the case that Leonard would not be any good had he started his career on any team.


                  Carmel HS Class of 2011

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                    Originally posted by neosmndrew View Post
                    He made Boris ****ing Diaw look like a top 10 bench player.
                    He really did. I really think that France owes a big part of its golden medal in the '13 EuroBasket to Popovich. Diaw was largely mediocre in the '11 EuroBasket but he performed a lot better in '13 and helped his team win the gold. Tony Parker was excellent as well. The fact that both of them played in the same team in the NBA under Pop helped their team immensely.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                      Originally posted by neosmndrew View Post
                      I don't understand why this is even a question. If you transplanted G. Hill now with K. Leonard now, than of course yes. But having 3 years under G. Popovich would make any guy look amazing because Pop is that good. He made Boris ****ing Diaw look like a top 10 bench player. That alone should make the case that Leonard would not be any good had he started his career on any team.

                      Your attitude about Diaw is exactly the same tripe that was being spread a year and a half ago on this forum when vnzla and others wanted to get him. It was stated Diaw was fat, out of shape, lazy, couldn't play, washed up, etc. He was playing in Charlotte on a LOOOSING team who couldn't win. He was use to winning not losing. Constant losing changes players. All he needed was a change of scenery to a team that could win games.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        Your attitude about Diaw is exactly the same tripe that was being spread a year and a half ago on this forum when vnzla and others wanted to get him. It was stated Diaw was fat, out of shape, lazy, couldn't play, washed up, etc. He was playing in Charlotte on a LOOOSING team who couldn't win. He was use to winning not losing. Constant losing changes players. All he needed was a change of scenery to a team that could win games.
                        Except that Diaw was also being mediocre when playing for France (which is a winning team). I was one of the people that didn't want Diaw but he certainly proved me wrong. Pop managed to turn his game around. He was much improved in the '13 EuroBasket with France and helped them win the gold. All of this was thanks to Pop.

                        I don't know if a lesser coach could do that. Diaw's talent was never doubted (not by me, at least). It was his desire that I disputed and Pop managed to turn it around.

                        PS: Still, Vnzla and all the others that wanted him were proven right in this case.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                          Except that Diaw was also being mediocre when playing for France (which is a winning team). I was one of the people that didn't want Diaw but he certainly proved me wrong. Pop managed to turn his game around. He was much improved in the '13 EuroBasket with France and helped them win the gold. All of this was thanks to Pop.

                          I don't know if a lesser coach could do that. Diaw's talent was never doubted (not by me, at least). It was his desire that I disputed and Pop managed to turn it around.

                          PS: Still, Vnzla and all the others that wanted him were proven right in this case.
                          So is Pop the only coach in the world capable of making his players better and finding a system that lets his players succeed? Is there no inbetween? If the coach isn't good enough to do that, is he good enough to be your coach?
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                            Originally posted by Romsey31 View Post
                            Wow we traded away the nba finals mvp.. A 22 year old that beat the team we were trying to for the past 3 years. I feel sick
                            Except the fact that Kwahi has 3 hall of famers behind his back for his first four years and a legendary coach. Kwahi would have never been that here, he would have been stuck behind DG for the first year and then stuck behind PG and Lance, unless you want a starting backing court whose only ball handler was George Hill.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                              Pop is the greatest coach of all time and its not even close. I hate that we traded Kwahi, but lets not act like he would be the same player today that he is in San Antonio.

                              It was a bad trade either way, just not franchise changing bad.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

                                Clearly in the world of "what have you done for me lately" hindsight, the trade seems like it is no-brainer bad.

                                But I really don't understand how history has gotten rewritten that Hill failed to do exactly what we needed him to do in those first couple of years. Remember he was a sixth man in SA with occasional starts - that's what we expected him to do here. While he got to start due to injury, it became clear even after DC came back that Hill's defense was miles better. At that time, Hill was performing ABOVE what we had gotten him to do.

                                We simply did not have the luxury to develop Kawhi. If we had tried, there would be people today screaming about how terrible it is that Lance was stuck on the bench and why could we not find minutes for this amazing player we probably ended up trading for someone else.

                                As long as fans live in hindsight, forgetting anything between then and now, there will be something to be upset about.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X