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

How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

    Every year I have a pretty firm idea of one or two players that I really like who I think will be available when the Pacers draft (first round only). I was thinking about this today and started wondering what *my* Pacers team would look like if I were sitting in the big chair for the more recent drafts...

    2008 draft
    Who we got: Jerryd Bayless (traded for Brandon Rush) and Roy Hibbert
    Who I wanted: Jerryd Bayless
    Hit or miss: This would've been a miss for me. I thought Bayless was going to be some kind of Allen Iverson lite coming out of Arizona and I was pissed when we traded him for Rush, especially after he started tearing up the Vegas summer league. He hasn't panned out, but then again, he's been better than Rush. I didn't think much of Hibbert, and he actually turned out to be much better than I thought he would be.
    Hindsight is 20/20: Ryan Anderson or DeAndre Jordan

    2009 draft
    Who we got: Tyler Hansbrough
    Who I wanted: Ty Lawson
    Hit or miss: Hit. I wanted Lawson bad. I thought he had a level of smarts and court awareness that would translate immediately into being a good NBA point guard. I was right. I'll be honest though... I hated that we drafted Hansbrough, but I ended up liking him OK.
    Hindsight is 20/20: Jrue Holiday, Ty Lawson, or Jeff Teague. I feel sick looking at that list.

    2010 draft
    Who we got: Paul George
    Who I wanted: Paul George
    Hit or miss: Hit. As a Butler graduate I obviously love Gordon Hayward, but I didn't think his game was going to translate into the NBA and was pumped when the Jazz picked him before we had the opportunity to. Obviously I was completely wrong about Gordon, the kid is awesome, but who we got has been pretty good as well (minus the shattered leg of course). I had read a lot about PG's performance at the combine and was really excited when we got him.
    Hindsight is 20/20: No one would've been better than PG.

    2011 draft
    Who we got: Kawhi Leonard
    Who I wanted: MarShon Brooks or Kenneth Faried
    Hit or miss: Miss, because between Brooks and Faried, I would've taken Brooks. First off, I did *not* think Kawhi Leonard would still be available at 15, and I was freaking out when he was there. I loved everything about his potential from what I'd seen of him at SDS and thought he would make a great NBA player, but I assumed he would be a top 10 pick. It still absolutely KILLS me that we traded him for George Hill (sorry GH fans). So minus Leonard, there were two guys I liked, Brooks and Faried. I thought Brooks was a super smooth scorer in college and I felt that his game would allow him to get easy open shots in the NBA. He looked pretty good his rookie year, but he's disappeared after that. Had someone taken him before 15 I would've nabbed Faried... I wasn't sure if he would be able to do in the NBA what he did at Moorehead State however. Clearly I was wrong about that.
    Hindsight is 20/20: Should've kept Kawhi Leonard

    2012 draft
    Who we got: Miles Plumlee
    Who I wanted: Draymond Green
    Hit or miss: Hit. This draft kills me too. I loved Draymond Green. Smart, tough, old-school, relentless, experienced... the perfect Pacers player. I still can't believe Bird went for Plumlee after the Hansbrough incident.
    Hindsight is 20/20: Draymond Green.

    2013 draft
    Who we got: Solomon Hill
    Who I wanted: Nobody
    Hit or miss: Miss. I didn't have a good feel for this draft. I wasn't excited about anybody, not even the top guys for the most part. I like Hill at the spot we got him and think he was a good value.
    Hindsight is 20/20: Meh

    2014 draft
    Who we got: No first round pick
    Who I wanted: Nobody
    Hit or miss: The top end of this draft was one of the better ones in recent memory in terms of prospects, but by the 27th pick there wasn't much that I could find to get excited about, so I did not miss the pick.
    Hindsight is 20/20: Nobody

    So there it is. Hit and miss, but I feel like I would've hit somewhat more than the Pacers' top brass has since 2008 because of Lawson, Leonard, and Green. Of course, that's entirely my own opinion. I'd be curious to know how others feel they would have drafted during this same time period...
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

    *whispers* Ty Lawson is kind of overrated though, George Hill is better


    Kawhi for GHill is an interesting question. I find myself in the boat that Kawhi would have been very good eventually anywhere he landed, but I think it would have taken an extra 2 or so years from what it took in San Antonio. Could the Pacers have afforded to wait on that? I don't know. I mean if you hit every draft perfect maybe you've got Jrue Holiday at point, but I hate those kind of year to year what if's because maybe then you don't get to draft Paul George.
    Last edited by Trader Joe; 04-30-2015, 02:54 PM.


    Comment

    • #3
      Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

      I think Solomon Hill was a good pick. Given who was available I think we dodged a few potential hazards. I mean Marquis Teague isn't even in the league and Perry Jones may not have a knee. That is who people wanted to draft.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

        Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
        I think Solomon Hill was a good pick. Given who was available I think we dodged a few potential hazards. I mean Marquis Teague isn't even in the league and Perry Jones may not have a knee. That is who people wanted to draft.
        Hmm... I conveniently forgot about Perry Jones. I didn't really like him in the draft, but I do remember thinking at the time when it was the Pacers' pick that we should have taken him over Solomon Hill. So... another miss for me.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

          Originally posted by bphil View Post
          Hmm... I conveniently forgot about Perry Jones. I didn't really like him in the draft, but I do remember thinking at the time when it was the Pacers' pick that we should have taken him over Solomon Hill. So... another miss for me.
          Yeah, if he were healthy he may have been a top 10 pick. I think he went to the doctor in pre draft workouts and we essentially told he had a 5 year career and his knee wouldn't get better. This caused a lot of teams (including us) to stay away.

          It may be a tallest midget argument on some level, but I would rather have Solo instead of Jones at this point.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

            Gobert was taken a few spots after Solo. If we're playing the hindsight game, that's probably who I'd pick over Solo. Perry Jones wasn't even in the same draft year. He was in a year earlier, in Miles Plumlee's batch.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

              For the people who liked Kawhi and Draymond as prospects, am I crazy to think that Solo is a similar sort of player? On the surface it seems a ridiculous comparison, because Kawhi and Draymond are lining up for max contracts while Solo just finished a frankly awful season for a lottery team. But they are all do-it-all forwards with glue guy games. Is there reason to think that Solo won't do well in the motion systems that the Spurs or Warriors run?

              Obviously Solo doesn't shoot as well or defend as well as those 2 other guys yet, but on the other hand he just got a full season of royal jelly for development. Of course physically he's never going to have Kawhi's length or Draymond's strength/toughness, but even a poor man's version of those 2 should be pretty useful, right?

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

                Unless there is some Player that rates as "heads and shoulders" above who is left on the board ( IMHO, PG13 was one of them ), then you have to wonder if Bird and the Pacers Scouting Department takes roster needs into consideration. I really wonder if they look at the "Best Player Available that fills a near-term need" as opposed to picking the "Best Player Available REGARDLESS of position".

                We all know that when it comes to drafting.....it's a crap shoot.....but when you look at some of these recent picks....either Bird and Company are a total "hit or miss" when it comes to figuring out their "Big Board" ( such as picking Hansbrough over Teague/Holiday/Lawson one year then striking gold and picking PG13 the next year ) or they do take "roster need" into consideration ( which would possibly explain the Hansbrough and Plumlee pick ).

                One thing to consider in the Hansbrough draft.......we all know Bird's penchant for not having traditional PGs in our lineup ( Collison is the closest thing to a real PG that I can recall ). We've had Combo-Guards running the point for the last couple of seasons.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

                  I usually don't know enough to have strong opinions prior to a draft, there are two things I do know though. I would not have drafted Hibbert, and I would have drafted Lawson.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

                    The problem with these what if questions is, it would have effected our lottery standings the year later. If he had gotten a point guard instead of Hansbro, we would have never traded for Darren Collison and so on.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

                      Phil,

                      Pretty dead on.
                      2011 wanted Leonard when he was available. Going in I expected Brooks though.
                      2013 I think I was thinking Bullock, can't remember, not an exciting draft.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

                        2008: Wanted Bayless. Did not like Rush (Hibbert was part of that JO/Toronto deal) at all.
                        2009: Wanted Jrue Holiday.
                        2010: Honestly, I am on record on PD as wanting us to trade that pick. Didn't like any of those guys. I'm a soothsayer.
                        2011: I don't really remember--I know that when Kawhi fell I was really hoping we would take him because he was talked about as a top 5 guy most of the time leading up to that draft. I think the guy I liked beforehand was MarShon Brooks though.
                        2012: When we pick this low, I rarely have a strong opinion. I know I wasn't happy about Plumlee though. At all.
                        2013: Same story as above. Didn't love the Solomon Hill pick when we made it, but by then had learned to defer to Bird.
                        2014: I was perfectly fine trading that pick, Plumlee, and the fool Gerald Green for Scola. In hindsight not a great trade, but not a horrible one either. Low impact.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

                          Now that the Pacers have an actual need at all positions......admittedly greater need at some positions than others....if I were drafting for the Pacers, I'd simply draft the BPA regardless of position.

                          In other seasons when there isn't as great at all positions......I'm still going to consider drafting the BPA. This is especially true when it comes to seeing how Kawhi and Gobert panned out.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

                            These were my choices at the time:

                            2008: Jerryd Bayless
                            2009: Jrue Holiday
                            2010: Paul George
                            2011: Marshon Brooks
                            2012: Draymond Green
                            2013: Tim Hardaway, Jr.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: How would you have drafted if you were running the Pacers?

                              Hey I'm still miffed we didn't draft Jamaal Franklin in the 2nd round a couple years ago, so what do I know.

                              I'm saying give Jamaal Franklin a minimum deal Larry.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X