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

Combine Interviews

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

  • Combine Interviews

    I'm interested as to whether any of you pay much attention to the combine interviews. Draftexpress.com has a video interview of each draft prospect from the recent combine. If you do watch these videos, do they sway you in anyway as to whether you're interested in us drafting that particular player?

    The reason I ask is b/c I was watching these interviews tonight and found myself shying away from certain players based upon their interview. It's my opinion that you can get a general idea of the character of the player by watching their composure, manneurisms, and listening to their overall answers. I try not stereotype, but it's difficult, as I feel there is a clear distinction at times.

    For instance, there is an obvious difference between how Tinsley or Shawne carries themself when compared to a Granger, Rush, Dunleavy, etc. At times you can pinpoint who may have a little bit of that thuggish mentality, which clearly we want to avoid. I feel it's somewhat consist throughout the NBA.

    After reviewing the tapes I found myself really impressed with Holiday, Teague, Henderson, Ellington, Hansborough, etc. I liked Curry although I sensed some cockiness on his part. I was put off by Clark, T Williams, and Mullens.

  • #2
    Re: Combine Interviews

    Watching player interviews definitely shapes my opinion of players.

    From this year's draft, guys like Blair, Jennings and Henderson impressed me in interviews, while several players have been off-putting. For instance, I really didn't like Terrence Williams because of his unfriendly attitude, and Holiday because his personality screams JO.

    Still, there are times when interviews are misleading. For instance, I thought Brandon Rush's interviews were off-putting and simple, but he plays basketball like with nuances and intellect that most players never reach.

    I didn't think Jarrett Jack came across as a good communicator in his initial Pacers interview but he now appears to be great.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Combine Interviews

      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
      Watching player interviews definitely shapes my opinion of players.

      From this year's draft, guys like Blair, Jennings and Henderson impressed me in interviews, while several players have been off-putting. For instance, I really didn't like Terrence Williams because of his unfriendly attitude, and Holiday because his personality screams JO.

      Still, there are times when interviews are misleading. For instance, I thought Brandon Rush's interviews were off-putting and simple, but he plays basketball like with nuances and intellect that most players never reach.

      I didn't think Jarrett Jack came across as a good communicator in his initial Pacers interview but he now appears to be great.


      Public Speaking scares the living crap out of most people. I would venture to say 75% of the population would rather get stung by bees then talk in front of people.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Combine Interviews

        Originally posted by justinDOHMAN View Post
        Public Speaking scares the living crap out of most people. I would venture to say 75% of the population would rather get stung by bees then talk in front of people.
        Although I enjoy public speaking, this is absolutely true. I just took Speech class and the speech givers would ask the teacher if everyone could put their heads down, or if they could do it after school in private. I'm not going to judge personalities based on the interviews.
        Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Combine Interviews

          I am calling for a literacy test. I believe every NBA player should be able to read at a 10th grade level.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Combine Interviews

            Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
            I am calling for a literacy test. I believe every NBA player should be able to read at a 10th grade level.
            Why should they have to be able to read better than everyone else? I've worked with executives that I'm pretty sure couldn't read at a 10th grade level.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Combine Interviews

              I thought Flynn and Blair were by far the best interviewees. I do agree that T-Will's was off-putting, but he does seem like a nice enough guy in other interviews.

              In general though, meh. Speights sounded like a complete dunce in last season's workout interview but there's no doubt the guy's a player.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Combine Interviews

                So we are judging how someone does at public speaking to determine what kind of person they are on and off the basketball court? Please correct me if I'm not getting the gist of this. I hope that isn't what I'm reading between these lines.

                I just listened to the interview with T-Williams. The content of the answers he gave seemed rather honest. I didn't find anything in the content of his answers that said, "steer clear". Are some of you,"put-off" by how he speaks?

                I guess I don't get it? Yeah, and I agree with what UB is saying in the next post.
                Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 06-10-2009, 02:07 PM.
                ...Still "flying casual"
                @roaminggnome74

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Combine Interviews

                  I don't pay any attention to these - just don't see a direct correlation between giving a good interview and being a good player. Sure, if I were TPTB I would want to interview the prospect, but as a fan i don't care

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Combine Interviews

                    The interviews really don't make much of a difference to me. I still listen to them, just because I think it's interesting to see how their minds work and how well they can communicate. That really doesn't have much of an effect on their basketball playing abilities though. The only way I could see an interview making a difference would be if a player came across as extremely arrogant and derogatory towards other people. Most of the time, these interviews have been practiced so many times by the prospects that anything you hear has been pre-fabricated anyways.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Combine Interviews

                      Blair was by far the best in my opinion. He came across as incredibly charismatic, personable, and humble.



                      I thought Holiday's was one of the worst. A whopping 77 seconds of what seemed to be disinterest on Holiday's part. He couldn't even bother to remove his earbud for the interview.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Combine Interviews

                        I don't get it. What's off-putting about TWill's conversation? The fact that he's wearing a red hat? The fact that he'd probably look at going overseas if he wasn't a first-round pick?
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Combine Interviews

                          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                          So we are judging how someone does at public speaking to determine what kind of person they are on and off the basketball court? Please correct me if I'm not getting the gist of this. I hope that isn't what I'm reading between these lines.

                          I just listened to the interview with T-Williams. The content of the answers he gave seemed rather honest. I didn't find anything in the content of his answers that said, "steer clear". Are some of you,"put-off" by how he speaks?

                          I guess I don't get it? Yeah, and I agree with what UB is saying in the next post.
                          No, you're right. It is unfair to judge players based on the interviews, but they're still interesting to listen to.

                          The only player i was put off by ( and it genuinely surprised me) was Williams. It's got nothing to do with the way he speaks, but more about the booking tickets to Europe if he didn't think he was going in the first round bit. While it is honest, it's something i personally don't like hearing from players. Is he just in it for the guaranteed money? Would he not be determined to prove teams wrong and work for his money if he fell to the second round?

                          It surprised me because i've seen other interviews, i follow him on twitter and he's said that he doesn't at all mind where he goes and his demeanor is that of a hard working guy with a strong work ethic. So i don't know, just hearing him say that was a little disappointing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Combine Interviews

                            This is not because I'm a TWill fan, and I haven't had the chance to watch the interview yet, but it doesn't bother me if a player says he'd rather take a HIGHER PAYING JOB.

                            Sheesh, either some people here are still teens or just aren't living in the same world as me. You go to a job fair and IBM says they might have a spot for you but it might be in the mail room (you have a BA Acct). You get an offer from some Italian company to move to Rome and be a Jr VP of accounting and make twice the money.

                            In the logic I've read here you are a jerk if you take that Italian job. Yes, that does make sense.

                            From now on I want all of you to take only jobs from the most prestigious companies, even if they are below the pay you could get elsewhere or for a lower position than you could have elsewhere. Just put your money where your mouth is.

                            Josh Childress = selfish little punk, good riddance to him
                            Argh.


                            *I'm not saying TWill comes off good or bad, I'll have to watch first to have an opinion on that. But I won't have a problem with him suggesting he'll keep other offers in mind when he goes to take the job he trained for in college...you know, like every single person in this country (and most others) does every day.



                            Funny, not knowing of this thread I said the following in the TUE workout thread...
                            No info to add, but as far as interviews go I'm much more skeptical of them in general in this era of PR coaching and such. The agents put them in training for how to interact with the teams, publicity, etc. Maybe it's genuine, maybe it's new but will stick, or maybe it's just saying the right things.

                            It's just a lot harder to be sure. I do think you can sometimes read into it, but it's better if you can get them in a non-canned interview situation, something a bit more dynamic that is tougher to prep for. If you just walk through the standard "are you going to come in and work hard" set of questions you are only going to get the wrong answer out of 100% idiots, and the rest are all going to "sir" you up plenty.

                            That's why I like in-season interviews when their agent interaction has to be a lot more restricted (should be none, but come on).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Combine Interviews

                              Originally posted by JB24 View Post
                              It's got nothing to do with the way he speaks, but more about the booking tickets to Europe if he didn't think he was going in the first round bit. While it is honest, it's something i personally don't like hearing from players. Is he just in it for the guaranteed money? Would he not be determined to prove teams wrong and work for his money if he fell to the second round?
                              By that logic, you should blame every draft prospect (and there are a number of them) who refuses to workout for the Blazers, as was reported, for not being determined enough to work for playing time and money.

                              All these young guys know the Blazers are already young, talented and stacked. So going to the Blazers means less playing time sitting behind those good players.

                              So what that tells you is that young guys are ALREADY looking out for their first contract extension. They would rather go to a bad team so they can get more minutes and put up better numbers than go to a better team where they would be further down the depth chart.

                              Terrence Williams is just another guy looking out for Number 1, just like everyone else in the draft.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X