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

NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

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

    NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2...=5-on-5-110621

    1. Which prospect favorably reminds you of a current NBA player?

    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: JaJuan Johnson reminds me of Tyrus Thomas. How many players can protect the rim and defend stretch 4s? That special skill set could give Johnson an immediate role on the right team. With a fine shooting stroke and, hopefully, his head screwed on a little tighter than Thomas', Johnson could fulfill the potential that made Thomas a No. 4 pick.

    Brendan Jackson, Celtics Hub: When I see Jimmy Butler, I can't help but think about Paul George's defense on Derrick Rose in the first round of the playoffs. If Butler does not become a star in this league, he could easily find himself filling the "James Posey" role for the next 10 years.

    Spencer Percy, Queen City Hoops: Jordan Hamilton reminds me a lot of Stephen Jackson, especially on the offensive end. Hamilton has very good inside/outside scoring abilities, and he can shoot and take defenders off the dribble. Hamilton must become more physical on the glass and quicker defensively to compete consistently in the NBA.

    Noam Schiller, Hardwood Paroxysm: Jan Vesely and Andrei Kirilenko. Like Kirilenko, Vesely breaks the Euro stereotype, with length, athleticism and a knack for posterizing opponents to go with it. While Vesely's horrid shooting and solid post game make him less perimeter-oriented than AK-47, he displays the same jack-of-all-trade qualities that made Kirilenko a must-watch box score stuffer in his prime.

    Robert Silverman, Knickerblogger: Kawhi Leonard is definitely channeling Gerald Wallace. They're both long-armed, uber-athletic small forwards who can rebound and defend enough to cover 4s on occasion and really thrive in an up-tempo offense.


    2. Which prospect favorably reminds you of a former NBA player?

    Dan Feldman, PistonPowered: Jonas Valanciunas reminds me of Alonzo Mourning. Mourning could do a lot more, but Valanciunas' quick hops, tenacious interior play and strong finishes at the rim resemble Mourning. Valanciunas, 19, must fill out before he can play that way in the NBA, but he's already shown the mentality and prowess to do so.

    Brendan Jackson, Celtics Hub: Justin Harper may not have the bulk to be a back-to-the-basket big man, but that doesn't mean he can't be a team's stretch 4 off the bench for years to come. I could see Harper thriving as the next Donyell Marshall. Not a star, but a valued contributor on a playoff team.

    Spencer Percy, Queen City Hoops: I watch Alec Burks and at times I see flashes of Allan Houston. Not as pure of a shooter, but almost like a more new school on-the-ball-type of Houston. If Burks is able to increase his ability to play off the ball offensively, I think he could become the new age Allan Houston in the league.

    Noam Schiller, Hardwood Paroxysm: Chandler Parsons and Toni Kukoc. This is obviously a huge stretch -- Parsons will never be anywhere near the player Kukoc was. But I can see Parsons thriving in the NBA in a similar role -- heady point forward who comes off the bench, runs a little offense, and does a little bit of everything. He'll be a second-round steal.

    Robert Silverman, Knickerblogger: There's a little Derek Harper in Darius Morris. Granted, as a Knicks fan, I'm perpetually pining for the next Harper or version 2.0 of any of Pat Riley's mid-'90s stalwarts.

    3. Which prospect unfavorably reminds you of a current NBA player?

    MotiejunasDan Feldman, PistonPowered: Donatas Motiejunas reminds me of Andrea Bargnani. Doesn't defend, doesn't rebound. Bargnani is practically the best-case version of players like that. Except for what he could fetch on the open market, I wouldn't want him on my team.

    Brendan Jackson, Celtics Hub: Does Latavious Williams count as an NBA player? Whenever I hear annoying talk about Jeremy Tyler's potential or measurements, I can't help but think of his predecessor. Both he and Williams were dubbed wunderkinds and both underwhelmed overseas.

    Spencer Percy, Queen City Hoops: I watch Bismack Biyombo and I see a Hasheem Thabeet-type bust coming. Biyombo is obviously not nearly as tall as Thabeet and is much more athletic, but the lack of offensive ability from both players is weirdly alike to me. If Biyombo can be a force defensively, he can cover up his lack of offensive ability, but if not he could be a huge letdown.

    Noam Schiller, Hardwood Paroxysm: Jimmer Fredette and Stephen Curry. The two are often mentioned together due to their college scoring exploits. But while I doubt Jimmer evolves into the offensive savant Curry has become, I can definitely see how Jimmer's slow feet make him an even worse defensive player than the Davidson product -- impossible as that may seem.

    Robert Silverman, Knickerblogger: Donatas Motiejunas could step right in for Andrea Bargnani and the Raps wouldn't miss a beat. Two jump shooting bigs who can't/won't rebound and/or defend.

    4. Which prospect unfavorably reminds you of a former NBA player?

    WalkerDan Feldman, PistonPowered: Kemba Walker reminds me of Dajuan Wagner. Both are score-first, undersized point guard who didn't score efficiently in college (in their final seasons, 41 percent from the field and 32 percent on 3-pointers for Wagner, and 43 percent from the field and 33 percent on 3-pointers for Walker). Walker passes and rebounds better, but enough to set him apart?

    Brendan Jackson, Celtics Hub: Kyrie Irving. He could be Chris Paul or he could be ... sorry Cavs fans ... Dajuan Wagner? It's hard for me to get past the fact that Irving played in only 11 college games. I could easily see him missing a lot of games over his career because, at this point, it's all we have to go on.

    Spencer Percy, Queen City Hoops: Kyle Singler is the player I'm going to make my second unfavorable comparison to because I simply don't like him as an NBA player. To me, he's a poor man's Danny Ferry, but not even as good of a shooter. Lacks quickness and athleticism that will hurt him badly on both ends of the floor. Singler will have to drastically improve his shooting to be even a decent rotation player in the NBA.

    Noam Schiller, Hardwood Paroxysm: Kemba Walker and Allen Iverson. Iverson is a surefire, first-ballot Hall of Famer. Anyone drafting Kemba would easily settle for that. But Kemba unfavorably reminds me of a much older version of The Answer -- the one who wasn't good enough to be his team's primary option, yet was structurally incapable of filling any other role.

    Robert Silverman, Knickerblogger: Derrick Williams brings back serious memories of Glenn Robinson. Like the Big Dog, Williams is going to score, possibly enough to merit All-Star consideration, but not in an efficient enough manner to really help a team win
    5. Which prospect-NBA player comparison doesn't work?

    FredetteDan Feldman, PistonPowered: Jimmer Fredette to Steve Nash. Very few players reconstruct their game from college to the pros as much as Nash did. Just because Fredette's style now resembles Nash's when he left Santa Clara doesn't mean Fredette will follow the same path. He's only slightly more likely to end up like Nash than like Dikembe Mutombo.

    Brendan Jackson, Celtics Hub: Kenneth Faried as Ben Wallace. I won't deny the rebounding connection, but I don't see Faried turning wrist bands into Ultimate Warrior Bicep Bulgers. Faired will be a great athlete, rebounder and asset to any team who drafts him, but he'll never be as intimidating as Ben Wallace.

    Spencer Percy, Queen City Hoops: Marshon Brooks being compared to Kobe Bryant is simply comical to me. I like Brooks as a player and think he has very impressive inside/outside offensive intangibles, and he also plays much bigger than 6-foot-5. But when I watch Brooks play, I see absolutely nothing that reminds me of Kobe.

    Noam Schiller, Hardwood Paroxysm: Serge Ibaka and Bismack Biyombo. Perhaps this is just my pet peeve of automatically pairing up compatriots. But raw as Ibaka was when he entered the league, he came with a semblance of a jump shot; Biyombo should never touch the ball on offense, ever. Similarly, Biyombo is more familiar with team defense, versus 2008 Ibaka's one-on-one specimen routine.

    Robert Silverman, Knickerblogger: It's got to be the Jimmer Fredette/[insert Caucasian who can shoot here] comparisons. He's not J.J. Redick or Steve Kerr. Jimmer is a better athlete than he's given credit for and his game/skill set reminds me more of Ben Gordon than the pale-skinned folks he's usually lumped in with.
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

    I hope we can sneak in and get another pick to get Jajuan, we certainly could use another big anyways.

    "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

      This point is awful:
      Spencer Percy, Queen City Hoops: Marshon Brooks being compared to Kobe Bryant is simply comical to me. I like Brooks as a player and think he has very impressive inside/outside offensive intangibles, and he also plays much bigger than 6-foot-5. But when I watch Brooks play, I see absolutely nothing that reminds me of Kobe.
      How in the hell can you not see a single similarity? Even if Brooks never wins 4-5 championships, you cannot deny their games share some similarities.


      But this point is spot-on:

      Robert Silverman, Knickerblogger: It's got to be the Jimmer Fredette/[insert Caucasian who can shoot here] comparisons. He's not J.J. Redick or Steve Kerr. Jimmer is a better athlete than he's given credit for and his game/skill set reminds me more of Ben Gordon than the pale-skinned folks he's usually lumped in with.
      I love the Ben Gordon comparison, and I think it's very true. I also think his athleticism is unfairly lumped in with the classic white-boy generalization.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

        Spencer Percy, Queen City Hoops: I watch Bismack Biyombo and I see a Hasheem Thabeet-type bust coming. Biyombo is obviously not nearly as tall as Thabeet and is much more athletic, but the lack of offensive ability from both players is weirdly alike to me. If Biyombo can be a force defensively, he can cover up his lack of offensive ability, but if not he could be a huge letdown.
        I find this comparison interesting because I like Biyombo but hated Thabeet. Thabeet's main issue, IMO, is his lack of speed and athleticism. Biyombo is not hindered in these areas the same way Thabeet is (plus, he'll have a 5 to back him up), which is why I think he'll be a much better player.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

          Spencer Percy, Queen City Hoops: Marshon Brooks being compared to Kobe Bryant is simply comical to me. I like Brooks as a player and think he has very impressive inside/outside offensive intangibles, and he also plays much bigger than 6-foot-5. But when I watch Brooks play, I see absolutely nothing that reminds me of Kobe.
          Look closer.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

            So, what I've basically learned here is, don't listen to Spencer Percy.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

              Originally posted by DGPR View Post
              I hope we can sneak in and get another pick to get Jajuan, we certainly could use another big anyways.
              You could do worse than J Johnson @ 15. Outside of Chris Singleton he may have the most prototypical N.B.A body type in the draft. What is funny about T Thomas is he got publicity playing w/ Chicago but playing for the Bobcats & injury have made him irrevelent.

              I don't like the comparison of Jimmer to Ben Gordan. Both score bunches in spurts but Jimmer has a different mentality than Ben. Jimmer may not be a better a player but Ben Gordan doesn't give a proffesional effort every night. Jimmer Will.

              Biyumbo to Thabeet is another terrible comparison.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

                I understand what the blogger is trying to say, but Thabeet and Biyombo have little in common. Thabeet is physically weak and is easily moved around. Biyombo imposes his will on the court.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  So, what I've basically learned here is, don't listen to Spencer Percy.
                  I think we can all learn from that:

                  I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

                    Biyombo's reported intelligence, physical gifts and already solid defensive game make me want him on the Pacers more than any other prospect in this draft.

                    Thabeet is tall. That's about it.
                    "man, PG has been really good."

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

                      Biyombo has quick feet, which kills Thabeet's shotblocking ability. Bismack will be a decent defensive-oriented FC player.

                      Also, Jimmer doesn't have slow feet/slow lateral speed. Again, he'll be good/decent.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        I find this comparison interesting because I like Biyombo but hated Thabeet. Thabeet's main issue, IMO, is his lack of speed and athleticism. Biyombo is not hindered in these areas the same way Thabeet is (plus, he'll have a 5 to back him up), which is why I think he'll be a much better player.
                        Thabeet's main issue is he has no desire to play or get better at basketball

                        It was simply something thrown on him that he saw as away to make money
                        Sittin on top of the world!

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: NBA Draft 2011: You remind me of

                          Very lame article. I disagree on almost everything besides the Jimmer to Gordon comparison.

                          Comment

                          Previous template Next
                          Working...
                          X