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

Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

    Ha, I thought the Bayless one was pretty funny.

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=8895

    First Impressions: With the NBA Pre-Draft Camp winding down today, and the top picks having been "introduced" to the media, it's time to talk about first impressions. Now basketball expertise aside, yesterday's media availability was the first time most media people got to see these guys, and some handled themselves better than others. Here is how it played:

    Derrick Rose: Rose was a pro, he handled the questions well, played coy and clever and was insightful and funny. A little shy and overwhelmed by the process, as most would be, he had some jokes about former teammate Joey Dorsey claiming to have inside information, and was genuinely a humble, nice young man.

    Michael Beasley: Beasley had some fun with this process, but along the way came off as a child. He didn't take anyone's questions seriously and had a few gems that will define his campaign to be the top pick. When asked about maturity he says, "I'm 19, how mature do you expect me to be?" – Not exactly the words a GM wants to hear. Beasley was fun and engaging, but the lack of maturity about this process was evident, and clearly contrasted by others who were very dialed in.

    Jerryd Bayless: Jerryd has a chip on his shoulder and an edge to him, that was obvious. In joking with another member of the media, the question was asked: "Did one of us run over his dog?" Jerryd was annoyed with repeated questions, and was hard to like. He may be a heck of basketball player, but he has "jerk" written all over him from a first impression stand point.

    O.J. Mayo: Mayo was great, he handled the BDA questions tactfully. He was engaging and charismatic and spent a lot of time talking in a very genuine way. Of all of the guys in the room, Mayo was by far the most surprising in his manner and character. He is very easy to like. He is very thoughtful in his responses and really came off as classy and professional.

    Kevin Love: Love is by far the best interview in the class. Kevin is funny, he is engaging. He has a great personality and shares that with everyone. He really came across as a class act. He may stink it up on the basketball court, but he is clearly ahead of the curve as a communicator.


    D.J Augustin: D.J. was the surprise, for the most part his reputation did NOT proceed him, and he was a welcome surprise. He was thoughtful in his answers, made eye contact, listened as much as he spoke, didn't use clichés, and was a very nice interview. D.J. is working out in Houston with John Lucas and could surprise a lot of people who have him pegged in the middle of the lottery. Character matters in this league and D.J. has a ton of it.

    Anthony Randolph: The resemblance to Marcus Camby was striking, both physically and in how he communicates. Anthony was clearly overwhelmed by the process. He is very shy and quiet. He needs to add some bulk to his frame or he's going to get killed at this level. Very nice young man, but you can see he is very raw and there will be a steep learning curve.

    Brook Lopez: Brook is almost scary in his size and physical appearance. He is very engaging as a speaker, but still came off rather stiff. It will be interesting to see how good he can be at the NBA level, especially in his first two years. It's easy to see Robert Swift in Brook Lopez. He is big, and very developed so it's easy to see why he is the top big man prospect in the class.

    Eric Gordon: Eric was an interesting interview because he really had to answer some tough questions, not only about Kelvin Sampson and Illinois, but also about his moving around from point guard to off guard. Scouts aren't sold on his position in the NBA, and he didn't do a very good job convincing anyone that he had the answer either. Eric is a tweener, and needs to work on his sales pitch.

    Came across a little more material this morning

    http://hoopshype.com/articles/orlpre...4_kamalsky.htm

    Big guns show up
    by Matthew Kamalsky / May 31, 2008

    With this year’s edition of the Pre-Draft Camp drawing to a close, executives got the chance to watch the likes of Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley perform in basic drills for the first time this offseason. The day also featured the usual three games and a combine, giving the participants one last chance to show their stuff.

    Friday’s activities were highlighted by the presence of this draft’s top 15 prospects. The session consisted of transition shooting drills, and then some position-specific work. While these drills don’t indicate much about a player, it is an easy way to gauge how much work they’ve put in recently, and how they approach practice.

    Anyone who watched the Memphis Tigers play this year knows that Derrick Rose is a freak athlete, but nothing makes that more apparent than watching him participate in offensive drills again token defense. He may be the best athlete in basketball, casually attacking the basket at a speed that most players can’t even achieve in game settings. He didn’t shoot the ball particularly well, but made a few NBA threes and showed off his amazing repertoire of crossovers and change of direction moves. The fact that he not only participated, but went hard on every repetition is probably a good sign.

    Anthony Randolph, on the other hand, struggled to hit anything, but it is his potential, not his current skill level, that has him slated as a lottery pick by most scouting services. He has ridiculous length and athleticism, and it shows when he attacks the rim, but he’s got a long way to go.

    No player struggled as much as JaVale McGee amongst the lottery-bound participants, and while he’s a tremendous athlete, he needs to work on staying confident after he misses from the perimeter. His calling card is his jumper at this point, but he was struggling to hit anything.

    Jerryd Bayless was essentially going through the motions, not trying to simulate game situations and looking generally disinterested. He was still hitting his shots consistently, and his ability as a shooter can’t be questioned.

    Donte Greene went out of his way to show off his athleticism every chance he got, throwing down a number of impressive tomahawk dunks. His jumper looked decent, but his ballhandling still needs work.

    Russell Westbrook is one of the most impressive athletes in the draft, and while he looked good in transition shooting drills, he went from making 1 of 5 shots in his first rep of shooting coming off of cuts to making all 5 on his second rep. He’s obviously got the raw tools to be great, and just needs the right situation to excel.

    Darrell Arthur had a very nice showing, looking crisp in the post, and the mid-range, while managing to bank in a couple of three’s from the top of key on consecutive reps. Brook Lopez was the other big man in Arthur’s group, and isn’t the smoothest post player, but is effective nonetheless.

    Kevin Love seems to have trimmed down a bit, and looked bouncier in transition drills. He’ll always excel in this setting, given the polish he has on his game. Joe Alexander is in a similar boat, looking effortless in almost everything he does.

    DJ Augustin is a heck of an offensive player, knocking down his shots with consistency and showing a very quick first step. He shot the ball well, but not as well as OJ Mayo, who looked simply incredible from the mid-range. DeAndre Jordan is long and athletic, but he’s really raw, and it shows.

    Michael Beasley can shoot the NBA three, which should render every team outside of the top-two worried. He looked scary good in drills. Eric Gordon can hit the three effectively, and has tremendous footwork for a player his age.

    Though these drills may not mean much, they are a useful point of departure as we move into private workouts. Measurement results from the combine should be available soon, bringing with them even more insight into these players.
    Last edited by pwee31; 05-31-2008, 11:16 AM. Reason: More info
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions

    I don't know...the Beasley answer may be the most mature, or at least honest, one I've seen.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions

      D.J. was the surprise, for the most part his reputation did NOT proceed him
      Err...what? DJ is one of the top character guys/stories all year. I thought the guy was going to say that DJ turned out to be dumb and mean.

      He is very thoughtful in his responses and really came off as classy and professional
      Mayo is always like this. That's why I stick up for him. I really think it's as simple as a sneaky middle-man jumped on his meal ticket, ripped him and a shady agent off, and then got kicked to the curb when it became clear to Mayo that his friend really was the jerk some were suggesting he was.

      Mayo's mom appears to be firmly in his life and I do think he's serious about his career. Remember of the 100K or more that went out only 32K over 4-5 years made it to Mayo. 6K a year is a part time Buger King job, not prima donna bought my family a home in exchange for choosing USC money.


      Then again Kobe has always been very polished too, but appears to have a nice jerk streak lying underneath.

      He is very engaging as a speaker, but still came off rather stiff.
      Often when I think of the qualities that make a speaker very engaging I think "does he come off rather stiff". WTF? He's very nice but was kind of a jerk.

      Oh, and TWSS
      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 05-30-2008, 03:05 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions

        Haha, there's the John Lucas sighting someone was waiting for.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions

          Ya, I'm sure Gordon's 'sales pitch' or lack thereof will dictate how
          GM's view him !

          It doesn't take long to figure out why they call those Hoopsworld
          guys 'guest columnists'. As often as not, they're either clueless or
          just regurgitating info someone else dug up.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

            added a little more material up top

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

              Interesting. Lots of flags on Bayless. I'm firmly entrenched in the Mayo before Beasley camp now. Not a lot of people with me there but Mayo has star written all over him.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

                How can these be first impressions when we've this topic over and over for weeks now?
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  How can these be first impressions when we've this topic over and over for weeks now?
                  Uh . . . some people are slow?

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

                    I'll take D J Augustin and be happy. Great kid and attitude , good shooter, quick first step , can go to his left or right equally well. Plays the passing lanes well , yes he'll get backed down by bigger point guards but with weak side help from JO that may not be as big a problem as some invision.

                    Character is something this team needs badly and within 2 years DJ could be a top offensive point guard in the NBA .

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

                      Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                      I'll take D J Augustin and be happy. Great kid and attitude , good shooter, quick first step , can go to his left or right equally well. Plays the passing lanes well , yes he'll get backed down by bigger point guards but with weak side help from JO that may not be as big a problem as some invision.

                      Character is something this team needs badly and within 2 years DJ could be a top offensive point guard in the NBA .
                      I totally agree. If we can acquire either he or Westbrook, those have to be our top priorities. I'm assuming Westbrook will likely be gone. If Augustin is available at 11, I'd make that pick.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

                        i officially want joe at #11 if he's there. the kid can do everything and you can find equal pg talent later in the draft or in free agency. pgs are great to have, but after the top 5 or so in the league, there is really not much difference between them all. drafting dj at #11 would be an incredible waste imo.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

                          trade dun and.or ike...get joe and augustin..I don't think we are getting a big man out of the draft unless its the second round and that will be " blah "
                          Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

                            I'm glad someone else noticed Gordon's footwork. It's the most underrated part of his game IMO. Yes, Gordon has many things he needs to work on, but the guy has a great first step.


                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Pre-Draft First Impressions: Updated!

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              How can these be first impressions when we've this topic over and over for weeks now?
                              Sorry, the title was taken from the first article. It was actually entitled First Impressions, so I stuck with it.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X