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

Rumors

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

  • Rumors

    http://www.realgm.com/src_feature_ar...ft_version_40/

    The RealGM Mock Draft Version 4.0
    Authored by J.T. Magee - 16th June, 2005 - 1:38 pm

    Deron Williams, one of the top point guards in this year’s draft, has “received” a promise that he will get taken by the New Orleans Hornets with the 4th pick. While this is a big possibility, the promise might not be true for many reasons. First off, if Portland were to trade down with another team, therefore picking for them, then Gerald Green may be available. If so, the Hornets may just stand pat with Speedy Claxton and a (probably) re-signed Dan Dickau. Green would end up playing small forward alongside J.R. Smith. Second off, if Portland does take Green, then New Orleans could have any choice of the crop of point guards. Chris Paul is rated the #1 point guard by quite a few web sites.
    Raymond Felton could be had, as well. On June 3rd, WIlliams, along with Felton, Jon Gilchrist of Maryland, Antonio Hudson of LSU and Toney Douglas of Auburn, all point guards, worked out in front of the Hornets’ brass. Head Coach Byron Scott said that Felton was the most impressive. He “understands how to play, he’s very quick..... Out of the four, I think he was the most impressive," said Scott following the workout. That quote could be a smokescreen, like almost everything that comes out, but I just don’t believe that after saying that, Williams would be given a “promise.” Stranger things have happened, though.

    Along the lines of a “promise,” it has been reported that high school prospect Martell Webster has skipped out on workout, or workouts, and not given the team, or teams, a reason. It was mentioned in the same paragraph that Webster is showing irresponsibility by doing this. Since a colleague of mine actually met Webster in person and said, in printing, that Webster was mature beyond his years, I am going with him.
    After compiling all this information in my own little head, this is my own belief and this is coming from no “source” inside the NBA, that Webster, too, has a promise. Who does he has a “promise” with? None other than... well, you can conspire amongst yourselves on this one.

    Speaking of high school shooting guards, Portland GM John Nash has become a bit peeved that Gerald Green has requested a private-workout only. Apparently, Nash wants to see Green go toe-to-toe with his fellow draftees and see where he holds up, whether he’s worth taking with the number 3 pick. Said Nash, in an interview with Jason Quick of the The Oregonian, “I'm frustrated today because it seems like a number of players at the top are unwilling to showcase themselves, saying they don't want to work out one-on-one or two-on-two," Nash said. "But that makes it hard for me, because if they don't want to compete for the third pick in the draft, then it's hard for me to envision them competing 82 times a season." All I can say is this: good for you, Nash. If Green wants to be the #3 pick to the Blazers, he should earn it by playing against others rather than just showing all of his positive traits. If the Blazers really did want Green, what they could do is grant him the “private” workout, then bring some of their players, like Ruben Patterson and Travis Outlaw, to the workout and see if he balks out of the workout of steps up and tries to compete against them. It would be a very shrewd maneuver, but it would give them the complete knowledge as far as whether Green is worth it.

    For the other three promises, all reported by DraftExpress.com, each are as follows: Ersan Illyasova, considered one of the best Turkish prospects, to the Denver Nuggets at #20. Yaroslav Korolev, the highly touted Russian teen, at #12 to the L.A. Clippers. And the last one, which very, very surprising, is Hakim Warrick to the... #9 spot, Golden State. While I do not know the validity of these “promises,” I can only say that the Nuggets is the most possible. GM Kiki Vanderweighe has stated before that they’d like to keep a player from overseas overseas to let him develop while the Nuggets stay in the playoff hunt. It would benefit both parties.

    Denver would not be using a roster spot for a player still in the developmental stage. Illyasova would get plenty of playing time in Europe while he develops into a player that can contribute alongside Carmelo Anthony. The last time they kept a Euro that needed development (playing time) was for another highly touted Georgian, power forward Nikiloz Tskitishvilli.

    I really don’t believe the Warriors’ promise because a player that can play and is more well-rounded can be had, depending on how the draft goes. I’m talking about Joey Graham. In this mock, he doesn’t fall to the Warriors because of the Knicks wanting a player that can play with Trevor Ariza, Jamal Crawford and Stephon Marbury. He could be drafted in the real draft. Warrick can play either forward position, like Graham and is just as athletic as him. He could fit into their fast-break mode at anytime, but I’m not sure if his shot is good enough to get those open midrange kick outs from Baron Davis. It’s a possibility, though, but it’s unlikely. The main thing I think of when I heard this rumor was one word that is associated with drafts: smokescreen. I really can’t see Warrick getting drafted by Golden State, even if there is reasoning for the pick.

    Korolev’s is unbelievable because he may have all the tools to play small forward like the other Americans in the draft, but almost everyone, including myself, have not seen him play against strong competition. He has played against high school-aged kids, but most of those kids aren’t as good as some of the high school players that are seen in America. Another reason it’s fairly unbelievable is because of the team he’s rumored to go to: the Clippers. They are known to penny pinch, and since there isn’t a buy-out clause in Korolev’s contract, it would make things a lot worse if CSKA Moscow asks for a lot of money for Korolev.

    Also, the Clippers are very high on soon-to-be free agent Bobby Simmons. Simmons was the Most Improved Player last season. While some may argue that it was his contract year, I only say this: he was due, no matter when his contract expired. He never got enough playing time in Washington under Doug Collins and Michael Jordan, so he never got a chance to prove himself. In L.A., he was playing behind Corey Maggette and Kerry Kittles. When Kittles went down an injured back, Simmons got a starting spot and never lost it, becoming a valuable asset to the Clippers and to many fantasy basketball owners. Drafting Korolev while the Clippers are getting closer to contending in the West would only become a regression, something I’m sure that Elton Brand would rather not deal with.

    The two pullouts are Tiago Splitter and Rudy Fernandez. I am very surprised by the pullouts because I felt that both were surefire first round draft picks. Unfortunately, both of their buyout’s exceed a livable amount. Fernandez’s is rumored to be around 1.5 to 1.7 million. Teams are only able to give the club that owns the team $350,000, with the player paying the difference. If Fernandez were to get drafted by the Suns, like he was in Version 3.0, he would be only be making -$265,000 to -$285,000, and that’s if he were to give every single dollar to DKV Joventut. Even after all of the payments in the first year, he’d still owe them over $1 million. If the buyout is that bad, then he’s better off pulling out, getting stronger and getting a portion of that buyout cut down by playing in Spain for one more year.

    I can’t really comment on Splitter’s situation because I don’t know his buyout. He would be a lottery pick, but either the buyout is as bad as Fernandez’s or he isn’t satisfied with not being a Top 5 pick. If he were to pull out, he would immediately become one of the top players for the 2006 NBA Draft, if not the #1 player. If he were to go back overseas, expect him to come back with an even better offensive game to go along with his low-post lock down D.

    As far as the rumors go, the biggest one so far but has been fairly quiet is between Utah and Phoenix. The Suns would send Shawn Marion, Quentin Richardson and the #21 pick to Utah for Andrei Kirilenko, Matt Harpring, Jarron Collins and the #6 pick. There are some very good things about this trade and some very bad ones. As far as a good thing goes, for Phoenix, they would get a player that can step in and make up for the lost rebounds and points Marion gave them:
    AK-47. He can score without getting a play ran for him, he can run and he hustles on defense as well as on the offensive glass. He was one of two players two seasons ago, including Denver Nuggets center Marcus Camby, that put up at least five in the five major statistical categories: points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. Kirilenko did it twice in a span of
    5 games. Also, Collins would give Stoudemire time at his natural position, power forward, and Harpring would add depth to the swingman positions. Phoenix would also get a little more room under the cap to re-sign Joe Johnson. Utah would get a desperately needed shooting guard that was underutilized last season in Richardson. Phoenix would then add depth to their lineup with whoever falls to them. Utah, already missing out on the point guards, draft best available bigman and best available player. In this case, though, there are more negatives than positives.

    For one, this draft is too deep in point guards for Utah to trade down and not acquire future picks. As much as they need a shooting guard, they need a point guard more. Plus Jazz owner Larry Miller has said that Kirilenko is untouchable. What’s the point of saying that if you trade him moments later. Utah is better served building around Kirilenko and drafting a point guard. As far as the Suns are concerned, why try and fix a toy if it ain’t broken? They shouldn’t have a much worse season then they did last year. All they need to do is add a serviceable center, like Dan Gadzuric, and re-sign Joe Johnson. They add depth to their bench and everyone stays happy while they continue their winning ways next season.

    Unfortunately, I was not able to make it to the Pre-Draft Camp, so I can’t say who impressed and who didn't. Judging from different scouting reports and stats, the two players that stand out the most are power forward David Lee of Florida and shooting guard Luther Head of Illinois. As I said before, I was glad that Lee, who I considered a first round pick before the camp, proved to everyone in attendance that he was indeed worth a first round pick. He showed that he is aggressive and tenacious on both offense and defense. He ran the floor, handled the ball better than expected (he is ambidextrous) and was able to rebound will the big guys at the camp.

    Head showed the camp that he’s worth being drafted because he’s more versatile than the player that wore his jersey at Illinois. He played great defense against both the point guards and the shooting guards.
    He also showed off why he was so good at Illinois: his shot. Although he didn’t shoot as much as he did as an Illini, he made his shots and used a good shot selection. He may be drafted in the first round, but he showed that he is worth a high 2nd round pick.
    Depending on the team’s needs, he may be able to slip into the bottom of the first round to a team like San Antonio or Miami.
Working...
X