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

2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

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

  • 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

    Basically this thread is about Russel Westbrooke and my thoughts on the draft.

    Forgive me if you get me wrong here, but personally, I'm not a big fan of this kid. Draftexpress has him compared to Leandro Barabosa. Although no one can really say for certain if he'll have a career like Mister Barabosa, I'd like to say this. If we draft Russell and there is a decent center on the draft board (or a pg/sg that is better then Westbrooke for that matter) then I'll stop watching Pacer's basketball.

    It's really rash but I'm even starting to get tired of losing seasons and drafting players like David Harrsion and Shawne Williams (The fact that Karl Lowry, Jordan Farmar, Mardy Collins, Rajon Rondo, Daniel Gibson, and even Dee Brown were all available at the PG position with this pick). As you can see, our drafting is pretty horrible. We take quality players randomly (Granger, Harringtonish, Reggie Miller, and Rik Smits), and then take players with potential far below the potential that is available that are hot heads.

    We need a center. No use in blowing our only lottery pick on Russell who will be a sub par to starter in the league at the PG position. With Russell, we'll probably make the playoffs for a few years and then end up like Jamal again. The Pacers have never had a true court leader besides Mark Jackson (Travis Best, Jamal Tinsley, Anthony Johnson was great but was dropped as were the potential draft picks because of Jamal, and Pooh Richardson.)

    For Bird and the Pacers just to realize how horrible Jamal is.. after passing up all the talent at that position is there own fault. But however, for them to waste there pick on Russell (if they do) is beyond me. All that talent because you don't know a thing about basketball for Russell "Never heard of you" Westbrooke?

    I've flamed a lot of rookies before, hopefully this one doesn't haunt me as much as the Greg Oden thread could do. However, I still stand by the fact that we need to keep Tinsley or trade him off for another Point Guard (or MID level exe) and draft a center that can not only transition Jermaine into a Power forward (as he is, and played the best as with Brad Miller) but also help Jermaine with interior rebounding and blocking. Jordan and a few others come to my mind with this.

    For any Russell fans, please comment on why you think we should take him?

  • #2
    Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

    Well, I like Westbrook.. I have seen multiple games he played in and am very impressed with him.. His defense is steller and his offense is quite nice as well.. He isn't the greatest shooter, but he is a very smart player and can get to the hoop at will. The defense rests their case

    To explain a lot of horrible picks with some great ones mixed in.. I think we always pick with potential.. And just most of the time our potential doesn't pan out.. But when it does they seem to be amazing players.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

      What the hell have Mardy Collins, Kyle Lowry, and Dee freakin Brown done to deserve being drafted over Shawne? Collins and Lowry are third stringers on terrible teams and Brown is playing in Europe right now. Shawne is a mere 21 years old and oozes potential. Have you forgotten the bulls game this year when he almost single handidly orchestrated that comeback win? Besides Rondo who would you honestly have had after him? Farmar- Maybe. Gibson- Probably Not. Even if you think he deserved to be drafted ahead of Shawne, alot of teams passed on Gibson so how can you blame Bird for that?

      Who are you going to trade Jamaal for? He has NEGATIVE trade value. No team wants to touch him with a 20 ft. pole.


      This team needs one thing: Perimiter DEFENSE. Westbrook was the best perimeter defender in college. Give us one lockdown perimeter defender and we make the playoffs this year. If he turns into a point guard afterwards thats just gravy.

      What center do you want us to draft exactly? Jordan, McGee, Hibbert, or R. Lopez? Project centers rarely develop in the NBA. Here's a list of all the center prospects that have been busts in the past few seasons.

      Pattrick O'Bryant
      Saer Sene
      Hilton Armstrong
      Rafeal Araujo
      Pavel Podkolzine

      And I'm sure there are more I just can't think of any.

      Who exactly has panned out that was a raw center coming out? Bynum? I might be good too if I had Kareem coaching me everyday.


      I'll I am saying is that this team needs good defensive players. He is a proven commodity at defense but has a ton of offensive potential. Jordan did nothing this season at A & M and McGee seems to have the attitude of Harrsion. R. Lopez and Hibbert would be reaches at 11. What center do you suggest we draft??

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

        I wouldn't want to spend a lottery pick on any of the centers in this year's draft. Teams get stuck with slop when the become obsessed with drafting a 7 footer. Remember when the Wolves took Felton Spencer and Luc Longley with consecutive lottery picks? >_<

        Honestly, I'm not big on Augustin or Westbrook either. Augustin has been compared to Jameer Nelson and Westbrook isn't a PG.

        IMHO the bust-ometer is off the charts this year. If the lottery god (ie. Stern) doesn't bless the Pacers with a top-3 pick tomorrow, I'd be fine with dealing the pick or trading down.
        basketbawful.com- The best of the worst of professional basketball. And there's a lot of it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

          Originally posted by GrangerRanger View Post
          If we draft Russell and there is a decent center on the draft board (or a pg/sg that is better then Westbrooke for that matter) then I'll stop watching Pacer's basketball.
          Other than Lopez, what center would you pick with the #11?

          Alternatively, what PG/SG would you prefer to Westbrooke at 11. Augustin? Rush? CDR? I like Rush and CDR but their biggest fans think they're late-teens picks. And I think Augustin is this year's Acie Law.

          It's really rash but I'm even starting to get tired of losing seasons and drafting players like David Harrsion and Shawne Williams.
          What do these guys have to do with Westbrooke? Harrison was taken at the end of the first round... it was hard to feel bad about that pick.

          We need a center.
          And you're not going to get one at #11.

          All that talent because you don't know a thing about basketball for Russell "Never heard of you" Westbrooke?
          Really? Never heard of him? Guys on this board have been talking about him as a Pacers target since before the tourney.

          However, I still stand by the fact that we need to keep Tinsley or trade him off for another Point Guard (or MID level exe)
          So... we either need to keep Tinsley or trade him. Well that narrows it down.

          draft a center that can not only transition Jermaine into a Power forward (as he is, and played the best as with Brad Miller) but also help Jermaine with interior rebounding and blocking.
          Yeah, that would be awesome. Who do you have in mind? Anybody we drafted now could take 3 years to develop, so Jermaine might be out of the league before this hypothetical player is ready to play for us.

          Jordan and a few others come to my mind with this.
          This is a joke, right? He might someday (5 years from now) be as good as Kandiman... is that a good thing? And the odds are he's closer to Sene. Very few players go 20 years of their lives without any basketball skills and then suddenly develop them once they hit the NBA.

          For any Russell fans, please comment on why you think we should take him?
          I'm not a fan. Short combo guards usually don't work in the NBA. But there's a real chance that he'll be the best player available at #11, and if so I hope we take him. I'd definitely prefer him to DeAndre Jordan. Have you ever seen Jordan play?

          Or, for that matter, Westbrooke?
          Last edited by Anthem; 05-19-2008, 09:54 PM.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

            As it has already been stated Westbrook would bring the Pacers something they really lack which is perimeter D. He might not be a true point offensively but he can play the postion on D.

            The Pacers were doing ok on offense with Flip Murray starting at point, you don't think Westbrook can play any better than Flip? Dun ussually initiates the offense anyway so why not get someone who can atleast D up the other teams point?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              Other than Lopez, what center would you pick with the #11?
              I would trade down and get Robin Lopez and another second round pick for a sg. Of course that is easier said then done but whatever.

              I think both of you guys point out that the draft is relatively weak at the 11ths spot at least for our needs. No really sure shot pg's are there and no relatively good defensive big men either.

              Last ditch hope for me is that Kevin drops or someone like EJ slides down to us. Other than that I say trade down.

              Merz you can also find a tweener sg in the second round to play good permiter defense for the pacers. The biggest knock on Westbrook is that he is a legit tweener. The pacers as they are constructed need a pg to create shots for others. Westbrook hasn't shown that he can actually do this in a half-court set. Of course this would be a stupid point if we had players who could create their own shot.

              In the end I won't be made if westbrook is picked because he has a workers mentality.
              Last edited by Gamble1; 05-19-2008, 11:18 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

                Westbrook is someone I haven't wrapped my head around yet, but because of what I'm reading about his defense, I'm pretty interested.

                And I know that if Jim feels like Flip Murray can play 1 in this offense, Westbrook more than likely can as well.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

                  trading granger for mayo or bayless would solve all of this. and then of course we can draft thompson at #11, then trade for bill walker and be set...mayo/bayless, walker, dun, thompson, jo(?)/foster(?)...that's called young and exciting.
                  Last edited by croz24; 05-19-2008, 11:51 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

                    Granger isn't enough for the team with the #1 or #2 pick.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

                      I had a dream we got the #2 pick. Probably just a dream, but it was a good one

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

                        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                        trading granger for mayo or bayless would solve all of this. and then of course we can draft thompson at #11, then trade for bill walker and be set...mayo/bayless, walker, dun, thompson, jo(?)/foster(?)...that's called young and exciting.
                        Thompson as in Jason Thompson? 11 is at least 10 picks to early for him. If the Pacers end up starting three rookies (two of them late first rounders) the only thing they'll be set for is an even higher pick next season.

                        What is with your infatuation with trading Granger? It seems like you can't go two post without mentioning trading him. Is Granger not "young and exciting" enough for you? Once they get to the age of 24/25 are they looking at the downside of their career? I'm 24 and if everything starts going down from here I might just have to kill myself.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

                          With the 11th pick I would take Speights out of the University of Florida.

                          My idea draft would be to trade Tinsley to Cleveland and swap picks our 11th for their 19th. With the 19th pick I would take Robin Lopez or the best big available.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

                            merz - i will not get into why i want granger traded. my stance is clear and i've discussed it probably too many times...just curious, have you seen jason thompson play? not via youtube, but on tv or in person?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 2008 NBA Draft: If we get the 11th

                              History is riddled with big-man late-lottery busts. It's what I said in the Augustin thread, I'd rather get a solid if unspectacular player than reach and get burned.
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X