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

2004 Draft Discussion.

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

  • 2004 Draft Discussion.

    29. Pick

    Kevin Martin

    nbadraft.tk:

    Scoring Machine. Overall great offensive skills. A great finisher who gets himself to the foul line. Has not really been hyped about because he plays for Western Carolina, but this guy is the real deal. Given the right opportunity and circumstance, he can blossom into a good player. Gifted player, loads of talent, great potential.
    Victor Khryapa

    nbadraft.tk:

    Versatile small forward with nice fundamentals. Good ball handling and passing skills for a guy his size. Will play out on the wing. Good shooter. Heady player with a good feel for the game. Moves off the ball well and off screens like Predrag Stojakovic. A good athlete who has the potential to be a great defender. Collects a large amount of blocks and steals using his long arms.
    Roko-Leni Ukic

    nbadraft.tk:

    Deceptively quick and decently athletic. Great ball handling skills. Good understanding of the game and has good fundamentals. Good distributor with the ball and has exceptional court vision making him most likely playing the point guard position in the NBA.
    Delonte West

    nbadraft.tk:

    Very intelligent player with an excellent feel for the game. Seems to know exactly what to do in every situation and seems to always make the right decision. Very good shooter that is capable of sinking many shots in a row. Very fluid and smooth athlete. Explosive first step and is an overall quick player. Is capable of scoring in any way, whether it be posting up, shooting the J, or slashing to the bucket. Excels in the open court and will be a very good fast break player. Good passing skills that have many thinking he can be converted into a PG. He already has a pretty sound foundation to make the transformation into a PG. He possesses very fundamental ball handling skills and exceptional court vision. Executes everything well, shows good poise during big games, and makes the game look easy. Solid defender that will only get better.
    Ricky Minard

    nbadraft.tk:

    Good scorer with good range on his jumpshot. He shoots the ball at good percentages despite his streaky jumper and lack of height at the shooting guard position. Good passer and possesses mediocre court vision. Solid rebounder for his size. Exceptional athleticism. He does basically everything for his team and is the "go to guy". Minard wreaks havoc in the passing lanes grabbing a lot of steals. In his junior year he averaged a phenomenal 22.5 ppg while shooting .516 FG%. Although his shooting percentages dropped in his senior year, Minard still averaged 22 points, 7 rebounds, and 5 assist per game.
    60.

    Andre Barrett

    draftcity:

    Barrett is the very definition of a playmaker, whether it is with his passing and his shooting. He can find the open man both on the break and in a half court set. He can hit the open jumper and is improving his long range game as well. His handle is great and he is fearless in attacking the hoop.
    nbadraft.tk:

    Great floor general. Excellent court vision and passing skills. Great ball handling skills as well. Pure point guard that knows what it takes to get his teammates involved. Barrett has also become a good scorer in college. Good leadership skills and basketball instincts. Good quickness and overall speed. Good 3 pt shooter. Has had a great solid career at Seton Hall.
    You hate to see great players like Barrett not get a chance to play in the NBA. Really skilled point but NBA players are still not sold on him because of his height. That is his biggest detriment. Otherwise everything else about Barrett is what everybody desires in a point guard.
    Marcus Moore

    nbadraft.tk:

    A legit point guard with a great build. Great size for a point guard. Good court vision and ball handling abilities especially for a 6'6" point guard. A true point guard who reads the floor well and knows how to pass.
    Darnell Hinson

    nbadraft.tk:

    Outstanding shooter from both outside and inside the 3 point arc (47% from three and 53% overall as a senior). Good rebounder for his height. Plays with a lot of heart and energy. Always gives it his all on the court. Solid passing and ball handling skills. Good defensive player. Gets a lot of steals. Above average quickness and athleticism. Has championship experience although it was in Division II.
    Rashad Wright

    Amit Tamir

    Bernard Robinson Jr.

    draftcity:

    Robinson’s main strength is his defense. In college, he would always take on the team’s highest scorer, and in most cases, do well against them. He is a great, natural athlete. He is an excellent passer, along with good court vision. He can create his own shot off of the dribble. He has a consistent mid-range shot. He has a high basketball I.Q.
    James Thomas

    Justin Reed


    draftcity:

    The type of player that coaches love. Extremely passionate about the game. One of the hardest workers in the NCAA, Will be the first one to show up for practice, and the last one to leave the gym. This is how he acts as a star in college. He is a leader by example, and always pushes himself and his teammates to give 110% effort. He is a student of the game and will do whatever it takes to get better. His coach has said numerous times that Reed will often go home with a stack of game tapes, which he studies in an effort to learn his opponents and work on his weaknesses.
    Thats just some of the players Indiana should look at.

    At 29 I would take Victor Khryapa if avaliable. Would bring alot of versatility to this team. [Although have him play a year overseas.]

    With the 60th pick, well I don't know. Its tough to say.

  • #2
    Re: 2004 Draft Discussion.

    Good roundup of prospects.

    I really don't know what we'll do with #29, or if we'll even keep it.

    As for #60, there were some Portsmouth pre-draft tourney players who we might look at. Mel Daniels is down here for the tourney every year, and Donnie and Larry were there this year, so I'm sure they've got an eye on some of these guys. [Jeff Foster, Norm Richardson, Jaquay Walls, and James Jones were all Pacers picks]

    Tony Bobbitt
    Very good shooter, good all-around skills.

    Desmon Farmer
    Probably the most exciting guy on the court from what I saw. This guy plays with a ton of energy. Think Darvin Ham as a 2-guard.

    Nigel Dixon
    A huge man. 6'11" and between 320 and 350, all of it muscle. Good on his feet, and not slow at all. Needs a post game.

    Andre Brown
    Got a lot of Kenyon Martin comparisons here.

    Ricky Minard
    I've seen this guy projected as high as #35, so I dunno if he'll be around.

    Michael Morandais
    Athletic 2-guard with good size.

    Andre Barrett
    Playmaking PG. Only 5'10", which will hurt his stock.

    Darius Rice
    Supposed to have a killer outside shot, but didn't show much here.

    Aerick Sanders
    PF, athletic, hustles. Not too raw.

    Antonio Burks
    Nice PG. Fast, good passer, good shooter.

    Jackson Vroman
    Really boosted his stock here. He'll be gone by #60.

    Erik Daniels
    Good bball IQ. Just what you'd expect from a Tubby Smith player.


    A few others who were solid: Bryant Matthews, Dylan Page, Anthony Myles, Luke Whitehead, Brian Boddicker, James Thomas, Cory Violette, Nate Williams, Luis Flores, Gerald Fitch, Brandon Mouton.

    .... Most of these guys will go undrafted, but will get summer league and training camp invites. I'd expect at least 3 or 4 of them to be on the Pacers summer league team, and a couple to make training camp too.
    Official Member of the Anti-Alliteration Association

    Comment

    Working...
    X