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

The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

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

  • The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

    So from now until draft day, I'd like to see everyone list their top 8, along with their reasoning for those top 8. Whenever you change your mind, come back and post a new top 8 with explanations for your changes.

    I think it'd be interesting not just to see everyone's lists now, but to watch them evolve over the next 2 and 1/2 months.

    Right now, I only have a (very) rough draft myself because I haven't watched/studied these guys as much as a lot of you have.


    1) Favors
    In hopes he can be a star 4.

    2) Cousins
    I have great concerns, but he's too talented to pass up if he's there at #10.

    3) Aminu
    In hopes he can be our Josh Smith.

    4) Udoh
    In hopes he's the guy some here think he can be.

    5) Johnson
    In hopes that he can be a big SG to pair next to our even bigger SF, until Rush subs in and you then run Rush/Johnson/Granger at the 2/3/4.

    6) Monroe
    In hopes that his high skill level outshines his weaknesses.

    7) Patterson
    In hopes he can be as good or better than I think Tyler could be.

    8) Aldrich
    I see a center who can guard a post-up player, hedge on pick and rolls, block shots, rebound, and has at least some chance of giving me a mid-range jumper.

    The more I learn before the draft, I may add/remove guys and shuffle my list, and I would encourage you to do the same.

  • #2
    Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

    For the 10th draft spot or just in general? You don't have Turner or Wall but you do have Favors and Cousins, and they are not lasting till 10th no matter what.


    BTW, obviously the plan is to make sure you get to see plenty of in-game prospect footage.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      For the 10th draft spot or just in general? You don't have Turner or Wall but you do have Favors and Cousins, and they are not lasting till 10th no matter what.


      BTW, obviously the plan is to make sure you get to see plenty of in-game prospect footage.
      In the spirit of "Assuming Wall and Turner have no chance of dropping, looking at everyone else that's left, who are my first 8 choices if they are still there (even if they probably won't be)."

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

        Well, along with being the first to provide a top 8, allow me to be the first to post a revision.

        I forgot about Bledsoe.

        1) Favors
        In hopes he can be a star 4.

        2) Cousins
        I have great concerns, but he's too talented to pass up if he's there at #10.

        3) Aminu
        In hopes he can be our Josh Smith.

        4) Udoh
        In hopes he's the guy some here think he can be.

        5) Johnson
        In hopes that he can be a big SG to pair next to our even bigger SF, until Rush subs in and you then run Rush/Johnson/Granger at the 2/3/4.

        6) Monroe
        In hopes that his high skill level outshines his weaknesses.

        7) Beldsoe
        Hoping he's the quick/athletic point guard we've needed.

        8) Patterson
        In hopes he can be as good or better than I think Tyler could be.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

          In other words, your top 10, minus Wall and Turner?

          Might as well make it a top six (top 10 minus Wall/Turner/Favors/Cousins).
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

            I think it's highly unlikely that either Cousins or Favors slips to #10, but not to the point of being entirely unfathomable like Wall or Turner would be. We just saw two pre-draft top five picks slip to #10 two years ago in Brook Lopez and Jerryd Bayless. I know we love Favors, but maybe GMs weren't that impressed by his sub-par (relative to expectations) freshman season? And maybe Cousins' craziness scares them more than we know? Rudy Gay was another big time

            As I said, I don't think either is likely, but it's not something that would completely shock me either.

            Edit: Although he didn't quite slip to #10, Rudy Gay was another pre-draft top-five pick who dropped on draft night. D.X. had him at #3 the day before the draft. He ended up going 8th.
            Last edited by Lance George; 04-10-2010, 04:00 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

              1) Favors
              In hopes he can be a star 4.

              2) Cousins
              I have great concerns, but he's too talented to pass up if he's there at #10.


              3) Johnson
              In hopes that he can be a big SG to pair next to our even bigger SF, until Rush subs in and you then run Rush/Johnson/Granger at the 2/3/4.


              4) Monroe
              In hopes that his high skill level outshines his weaknesses.


              5) Aminu
              In hopes he can be our Josh Smith.

              6) Henery
              In hopes he shows his potential and becomes the scoring X-Man that that I think he can be

              7) Udoh
              In hopes he's the guy some here think he can be.

              8) Beldsoe
              Hoping he's the quick/athletic point guard we've needed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

                My Turn


                1) Gordon Hayward
                In hopes he can be a star 4.

                2) Gordon Hayward
                I have great concerns, but he's too talented to pass up if he's there at #10.

                3) Gordon Hayward
                In hopes he can be our Josh Smith.

                4) Gordon Hayward
                In hopes he's the guy some here think he can be.

                5) Gordon Hayward
                In hopes that he can be a big SG to pair next to our even bigger SF, until Rush subs in and you then run Rush/Hayward/Granger at the 2/3/4.

                6) Gordon Hayward
                In hopes that his high skill level outshines his weaknesses.

                7) Gordon Hayward
                In hopes he can be as good or better than I think Tyler could be.

                8) Gordon Hayward
                I see a center who can guard a post-up player, hedge on pick and rolls, block shots, rebound, and has at least some chance of giving me a mid-range jumper.

                Done.............
                Last edited by vnzla81; 04-10-2010, 07:16 PM.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

                  Is this a list of top 8 Players that I would want?

                  or

                  Is this a list of the top 8 Players in the draft?

                  Keep in mind....the 2 lists can be....but aren't necessarily the same thing.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    My Turn


                    1) Gordon Hayward
                    In hopes he can be a star 4.

                    2) Gordon Hayward
                    I have great concerns, but he's too talented to pass up if he's there at #10.

                    3) Gordon Hayward
                    In hopes he can be our Josh Smith.

                    4) Gordon Hayward
                    In hopes he's the guy some here think he can be.

                    5) Gordon Hayward
                    In hopes that he can be a big SG to pair next to our even bigger SF, until Rush subs in and you then run Rush/Johnson/Granger at the 2/3/4.

                    6) Gordon Hayward
                    In hopes that his high skill level outshines his weaknesses.

                    7) Gordon Hayward
                    In hopes he can be as good or better than I think Tyler could be.

                    8) Gordon Hayward
                    I see a center who can guard a post-up player, hedge on pick and rolls, block shots, rebound, and has at least some chance of giving me a mid-range jumper.

                    Done.............
                    This reminds me of the artlcle on Hayward on NBADraft.net that discussed the "legend" surrouding Hayward:

                    http://www.nbadraft.net/node/19939

                    Gordon Hayward is so legendary that he shouldn’t be drafted #1. He should be drafted #1 through #10 forcing a team to trade for all those picks in order to retain his services. At the very least the woeful Indiana Pacers have to draft Hayward. I mean look how good it worked out last time they drafted the local legend…Steve Alford in ’87. (Wait…you mean they passed on Alford for some punk from UCLA…yiesh…I’m sure that train wreck worked out.)
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

                      OK this is under the assumption that Turner and Wall are off the board...

                      1) Cousins

                      2)Favors

                      3)Aminu

                      4)Udoh

                      5)Bledsoe

                      6)Patterson

                      7)Monroe

                      8) Aldrich

                      For the players that should be available at 10 my top pick still would be Udoh.
                      JOB is a silly man

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

                        My list is kinda hard to do because outside of Wall, Turner, Favors, and Cousins - there is really no one worth taking at 10 in my opinion. I honestly would rather just trade out of this draft and get an extra pick next year or a good young player with potential.

                        1. Favors - Exactly what we need in our PF.

                        2. Cousins - Could be a great player and would be a great player next to Hibbert.

                        3. Whiteside - Huge risk/reward player, but could be a defensive menace next to Hibbert.

                        4. Davis - Same as Whiteside, a huge risk, but has shown the potential to be great.

                        5. Aminu - Redundant here, but talented.

                        6. Johnson - Same as above.

                        7. Henry - Same as above.

                        8. Monroe - Reminds me a little of Aldridge, hopefully he can get agressive.

                        Most of the guys I listed have starter talent or the potential be get there. I don't think guys like Patterson fit that description and I really don't want to draft another guy whos ceiling is a role player. Bledsoe isn't on the list because O'Brien would ruin him by playing him at SG and SF.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          Is this a list of top 8 Players that I would want?

                          or

                          Is this a list of the top 8 Players in the draft?

                          Keep in mind....the 2 lists can be....but aren't necessarily the same thing.
                          Who you want us to take.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

                            1) Favors: Size, defensive potential, "freakishly athletic".
                            2) Aminu: "If smallball is inevetible, draft accordingly, lay back, and enjoy it"
                            3) Johnson: Hope that he cam play some SG, liking the S.Marion comarison.
                            4) Bledsoe: position of need, athleticism, hope we get a top 3 pick 1 yr early.
                            5) Udoh: Think he can play 4 & 5, like the passing & shot blocking.
                            6) Motiejunas: high ceiling, we have no skill set like him, just a gut feel.
                            7) Monroe: Could play both 4 & 5, solid skill set.
                            8) E.Davis: Rebounding & upside, athletic, w/ a frame to add good size.

                            *Cousins as trade bait only - can't trust him. See him as a pure 1/2 court 5, question the hype.
                            Last edited by PacerGuy; 04-11-2010, 12:40 AM.
                            "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                            (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Official "These are my Top 8" Thread

                              Makes more sense to do this for the 1st, and 2nd round, than just in general.

                              1. Eric Bledsoe - Will surprise people
                              2. Derrick Favors - Perfect defensive presence next to Hungry Hibbert
                              3. Wes Johnson - Could use 4th swingman to go with Rush, Jones, Granger
                              4. Xavier Henry - See above
                              5. Ekpe Udoh - Derrick Favors Light...more polished, but older.
                              6. Patrick Patterson - Is he big enough ?
                              7. Hassan Whiteside - Is he all hype, no substance ?
                              8. Avery Bradley - Can he play PG ?

                              2nd Round

                              1. Jarvis Varnado - If we go small in 1st, he wouldnt be a bad Big
                              2. Greivis Vasquez - At least if Obie runs him as 2nd PG in lineup he isnt 6'1 or less
                              3. Willie Warren - Could be STEAL in 2nd round, better than he played this year
                              4. Da'Sean Butler - Would love to grab him with that late 2nd rounder if we get it this yr
                              5. Solomon Alabi - Cant teach 7'1
                              6. Lance Stephenson - Big Potential....Multiple background checks, interviews 1st please
                              7. Daniel Orton - Defensive Minded Big with potential
                              8. LaceDarius Dunn/Jimmer Fredette/JaJuan Johnson/Nolan Smith/Armond Johnson - If they stay in ?
                              Last edited by Wylder1324; 04-11-2010, 12:54 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X