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

josh selby not eligible

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

  • josh selby not eligible

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5441450

    LAWRENCE, Kan. -- In the wake of a report saying Kansas recruit Josh Selby may not be eligible, Jayhawks coach Bill Self said Thursday "it is not at all unusual" for the NCAA to look at some of the nation's top recruits.

    A report by CBSsports.com indicated the NCAA was questioning a relationship between Selby and Robert Frazier, the business manager for NBA star Carmelo Anthony.

    Selby, a point guard from Baltimore, has been listed by some services as the No. 1 recruit in the country.

    Self, who was out of town, issued a statement.

    "I have received several calls about the article," he said. "As has been mentioned previously, we do not comment on recruits until they arrive on campus for the fall semester. I will say, as we have experienced in the past in our program, it is not at all unusual for the NCAA to look into many of the country's top-rated recruits each year for any number of reasons."

    Selby's mother was quoted by the Lawrence Journal-World as saying she did not see any problems with the NCAA.
    --------------------------------------------------------

    What next for selby if he can't play?

    Looks like he would be forced to go overseas so that he can be drafted next year. In some manys I think going oversea is much harder then playing in the ncaa. international play is alot harder because of being able to hip check someone all the way down the court. brandon jennings was the first player to go overseas and come back a future nba star. He made the best of his experience and didn't let it effect his game. This could be a good thing but, it could also go very bad for selby.

    If he goes overseas and his stock goes down then he could be a steal next year in the late first or second round.
    2012: Pacers return to glory

    Paul George All Day

  • #2
    Re: josh selby not eligible

    /rant on

    It is just stupid these kids can't go pro out of highschool and that they are forced to partake in the corrupt world of college basketball or leave the country. You are a man at 18 (legally) and you should be able to play in the NBA without having to go through the motions of one year in college basketball. This stupid rule does nothing for the education of the kids, it is only there to make more money for the universities and to build up the hype for the NBA draft. It is a rule made for all the wrong reasons, no matter what kind of spin is put on it and should be rescinded ASAP.

    /rant off

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: josh selby not eligible

      Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
      /rant on

      It is just stupid these kids can't go pro out of highschool and that they are forced to partake in the corrupt world of college basketball or leave the country. You are a man at 18 (legally) and you should be able to play in the NBA without having to go through the motions of one year in college basketball. This stupid rule does nothing for the education of the kids, it is only there to make more money for the universities and to build up the hype for the NBA draft. It is a rule made for all the wrong reasons, no matter what kind of spin is put on it and should be rescinded ASAP.

      /rant off
      Are you also considering the numerous individuals coming out of HS with dreams of the NBA who are stars in high school but won't actually make it in the pros? A year of college helps them see where they are against a much stronger talent pool.

      Also, I certainly think "Born Ready" Stephenson benefited from a year of college, which appeared to help him mature, improve his game, and help him realize he isn't Lebron or Kobe. A trip straight from HS to the NBA could have been disastrous for him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: josh selby not eligible

        I saw this scroll across the ticker last night on ESPN. I was going to look this up this morning and here it is. It is a tough call on whether or not the year out of high school rule is good or not. It is really more for college basketball than anything else. It also helps guys mature for that year and get a fell for playing better competition to see if the are really ready for the NBA. If feel bad for this kid. Does the article say what kind of contact he had with Frazier? I can't go to ESPN at work.

        I first heard about this kid on here when we were discussing next years draft. I have watched some of his youtube videos and he looks like he can play. He seems like a drive first quick PG who has pretty good court vision. Maybe a smaller version of Lance. He might be someone to look for next year depending on how this season works out.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: josh selby not eligible

          Well, I think losing your NCAA eligibility shouldn't be a big deal. Many, many kids go study abroad for a semester, and they certainly don't get paid upwards of a million dollars to do it. It's not like going to Europe for a year is this onerous requirement that nobody else anywhere chooses to do. For that matter, if you were that concerned about the language barrier, you could choose to play for a lot less money for a club team in Australia or the UK. Not to mention that some would say that a year of Euro ball would likely make you a better passer/team player, and would certainly help if you were selected to play for Team USA in the future.

          If these kids are so emotionally fragile that a year in Europe making great money ruins their NBA career, then I feel like they were never going to be a star, anyways. Something else would have got in their way back home, preventing them from realizing their potential.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: josh selby not eligible

            I agree with Thingfish and wonder what the difference is between Uncle Sam and the NBA, but what do I know, old enough to be shipped overseas with a darned big gun in your hand to shoot or be shot, but not old enough to shoot a basketball on a professional level, you serious ?
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: josh selby not eligible

              Taking out the hoops side of the equation, it's just plain wrong to deny a job to an 18 y/o that is good enough to fill it.
              It would be ILLEGAL for ME to do that with my hires, yet it's ok in THIS ONE SPORT!!

              The NCAA is an unholy entity that is about one thing and one thing only.
              And it AIN'T about the kids...................
              $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$

              It's a monopoly and should be broken up.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: josh selby not eligible

                Originally posted by MLB007
                it's just plain wrong to deny a job to an 18 y/o that is good enough to fill it. It would be ILLEGAL for ME to do that with my hires,

                Not if they are heavy truck drivers, bartenders, congressmen or strippers. Those (and other) occupations require a minimum age over 18.

                Believe what you want to about readiness of an 18 year old to play in the NBA. But minimum age limits for employment are quite common.
                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: josh selby not eligible

                  Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                  Taking out the hoops side of the equation, it's just plain wrong to deny a job to an 18 y/o that is good enough to fill it.
                  It would be ILLEGAL for ME to do that with my hires, yet it's ok in THIS ONE SPORT!!

                  The NCAA is an unholy entity that is about one thing and one thing only.
                  And it AIN'T about the kids...................
                  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$

                  It's a monopoly and should be broken up.
                  So, are you saying an employer does not have the right to ask for certain qualifications to be considered for a job?
                  When another "business" employer states that a college degree, or other extended educational degrees are required is that unjust? Who is to say that someone w/ less education is not as capable. Success is not guarenteed w/ schooling or degrees, "life experience", common sense, work ethic and much more all go into being a successful individual, but "businesses" put requirements on people all the time. Is this also an injustice?
                  Life is full or "restrictions" that are intended to benifit the "whole", not the individual. We have "requirements/ rules/ restrictions" on everything from when you can dring, smoke, drive, vote, fight in war, have sex, see certain movies, and how tall you need to be to ride a ride. Are these all wrong? All these "requirements/ rules/ restrictions" are in place to protect the "whole", (be that other citizens, national security) as well as the individual themselves. Most of these rules take into account ones mental readyness" more then any physical readyness, & IMO that is what the NBA is doing. Is money a factor - yeah, I'm sure it is, but that does not make the rule bad or w/o merit. There are examples that show the majority of young men entering the NBA struggle w/ the changes & choices they are confronted with. Money, sex, drugs, work ethic, and a basic overall mental maturity for the lifestyle/ "work enviroment". Sure, you can counter w/ the "Kobe's & KG's" of the league, but there are hundreds of examples that go the other way. This rule is for them. This rule is for the franchises that are running a "business" not a day care or H.S. counseling center. This rule is for us fans that want to see young men w/ great talent play great basketball while also being succesful off the court. Everyone is facinated to watch a train wreck, but that doesn't mean we should take down all the road guards & flashing lights. Some things are just needed to save us from ourselves.
                  "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                  (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: josh selby not eligible

                    It is not the NCAA that has instituted this rule it is the NBA, so don't get mad at the wrong group here. Also no one says an 16, 17, or 18yr. old can't get a job as a professional basketball player, you just cant get a job in the NBA. Even waiters have to start at TGI Fridays before earning enough experience to become a "professional" waiter at someplace like Ruth's Chris or some other high end restaurant.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: josh selby not eligible

                      You guys are forgetting this age limit was also backed by the NBA Players Association. They thought was that they could delay high schoolers who weren't ready from coming in and taking roster spots from established verterans.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: josh selby not eligible

                        Personally I'd love for someone to tell me to go to college for a year without a job and I'll make more money than I would at my job for 20 years. Maybe that's just me though...
                        Last edited by Flibertygibits; 08-06-2010, 04:21 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: josh selby not eligible

                          Bill Self and John Calipari run the shadiest programs in college basketball. I'd wager that Selby will be eligible before it's said and done.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: josh selby not eligible

                            My issue is that it seems like the one year rule is either completely unneccessary or too low.

                            IMO it's bad for the college game. Either let the players try out the pro game immediately - they'll make some money...if they truly want a degree they can pay for it with smart management, if not....well it's their right to screw it up - or force them to stay for 3 years. Heck, or make it somewhat like the MLB. Give them options to declare. Enter out of high school or stay two years in college, enter after two years or stay for your degree. So, make the necessary draft ages 18, 20, and 22+ (with variables based on player age vs their peers, of course)

                            The question, if something like that were to happen, would be whether or not a team could draft an 18 year old that plans on going to college to secure his rights for when he decides to go pro.
                            "man, PG has been really good."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: josh selby not eligible

                              I like the 1 year rule. Much easier for teams to evaluate talent, players enter the league more ready and not only basketball wise. One year away from home, the AAU circuit, the entourages does most of them some good. Plus, it gives them a better measure of their weaknesses and strengths. It's tougher to do that in the NBA.

                              If players want to turn pro immediately after high-school, they have the D-League and the overseas leagues.

                              If this kid is really good, he should go to Europe but learn from Jennings experience and choose a weaker team to play for. It's still better coaching and competition, a lot more money and he can get the minutes he needs.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X