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 ; Picking a point guard is matter of preference

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

    NBA Draft ; Picking a point guard is matter of preference

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04

    Picking a point guard is matter of preference
    By Mike Wells
    mike.wells@indystar.com


    Speed? Yep.

    Size? Got it.

    Talent? Without a doubt.

    Depth? That's there, too.

    There will be a plethora of point guards available to NBA teams in need of a floor leader in Tuesday's draft at Madison Square Garden in New York. The question is, which one will go first?

    "The point guard position is very deep this year," Charlotte Bobcats director of scouting Kenny Williamson said. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder on what type of point guard you want."

    It won't be like 1999 when four point guards -- Baron Davis, Steve Francis, Andre Miller and Jason Terry -- were selected in the top 10, but there's a strong possibility that three point guards will be taken early.

    They all bring a different dimension to the game.

    Wake Forest's Chris Paul has the complete package, a scorer who can generate shots for himself or teammates. He averaged 15.3 points and 6.6 assists as a sophomore.

    Deron Williams, the one-time pudgy point guard who led Illinois to the NCAA Tournament final, has shed 15 pounds to go with good size (6-3), and scouts like his basketball IQ. Williams averaged 12.5 points and 6.8 assists, and teammates identified him as the Illini's MVP.

    Raymond Felton, North Carolina's 6-1, 198-pound floor general, might be the quickest player in the draft. Felton averaged 12.9 points and 6.9 assists last season.

    "It's not just those three," Indiana Pacers director of scouting Joe Ash said. "You can go beyond those three guys and still find a quality point in this draft. There are plenty of guys, including international ones, that aren't even being talked about as much but can still contribute in the NBA."

    While the top two players who could be drafted at shooting guard -- a position the Pacers might look at -- just graduated from high school (Martell Webster and Gerald Green), the point guard position not only has talent but also college experience. Georgia Tech's Jarrett Jack is also expected to be taken in the first round.

    "Most of the guys in this class are mature kids," Ash said. "They all played in high-profile programs. When you have kids, especially ones that are playing the point, getting college experience under their belt, it helps out so much because the NBA game is so much different."

    As deep as it is, there's little question that Paul, Williams and Felton are the leaders of the pack.

    "I've seen in some mock drafts where Felton might slip to 10 or 12; I really don't believe that," Pacers president Larry Bird said. "I think he's good enough to be taken in the top seven or eight."

    With Felton clearly the third member of the elite group, the question now is: Who goes first, Paul or Williams?

    "I think the jury is still out on them," Williamson said. "Some teams like them short, some like them tall. Some like them with a high basketball IQ. They're unique because each does something different."

    Williams has fared so well in workouts that there is talk that Atlanta, which has the No. 2 pick, might choose him over North Carolina freshman Marvin Williams.

    Deron Williams won't beat his defender with ankle-breaking moves, but he has size, strength, savvy and a pass-first mentality that allows him to excel.

    "You look at him in person versus tape or TV and he's quicker and leaner," Ash said. "Deron, in my opinion, doesn't have the speed that Chris Paul has, but he gets it there quick enough. He's a little bit bigger. How fast do you have to be to get it from one end to the other? Some of the best point guards that played weren't speed demons. Magic (Johnson) wasn't fast. John Stockton wasn't a speedy guy, but he got it there.

    "Deron's bulk is good from the defensive standpoint because it gives him a little more resistance."

    The knock on Paul is his size (6-0, 175 pounds). Opposing guards will likely post him up, but he is a good decision-maker with a solid shooting touch.

    "He's got the whole package," Minnesota Timberwolves general manager Jim Stack said. "You really can't go wrong with Paul or Williams. There's really seven or eight point guards out there that can get drafted and have a chance to make an impact. It may not be next season, but down the road."


    Rating the guards

    Point guards

    Rank Player, school or country Size PPG
    1. Chris Paul, Wake Forest 6-0, 175 15.3
    Paul's size is questionable, but he's the most well-rounded point guard of the group. Spent two seasons at Wake Forest. Has a slight edge over Deron Williams as the top point guard in the draft. Paul shouldn't fall any lower than No. 4 to New Orleans.
    2. Deron Williams, Illinios 6-3, 195 12.5
    Isn't the quickest, but has the size and strength to handle the position. His stock has risen to the point where he could overtake Paul and be drafted as high as No. 2 by Atlanta.
    3. Raymond Felton, North Carolina 6-1, 198 12.9
    Quickest point guard in the draft. Helped lead North Carolina to an NCAA title last season. Outstanding in transition, but his decision-making can be erratic. Has a chance to be drafted in the top 10.
    4. Jarrett Jack, Georgia Tech 6-3, 202 15.5
    Left Georgia Tech after his junior season. Like Williams, has good size and is strong. Will probably be drafted toward the end of the first round.
    5. Roko Ukic, Croatia 6-5, 183 18.5
    Croatian played well in the European pre-draft camp in Treviso, Italy. Has ability to distribute and score. Some have him rated higher than Jack.


    Impact on the Pacers: With three point guards already under contract next season, the Pacers have more important needs than drafting at this position.

    Shooting guards

    Rank Player, school Size PPG
    1. Gerald Green, Gulf Shores Academy, Houston 6-8, 200 33.0
    Green is being compared to a young Tracy McGrady and is one of the top athletes in the draft. Won the McDonald's All-American slam dunk contest. Definitely a top-10 pick.
    2. Martell Webster, Seattle Prep 6-7, 210 27.7
    Another high school-to-pro player. One of the top shooters in the draft. Has a mature body despite being just 18. A possible lottery pick.
    3. Antoine Wright, Texas A&M 6-7, 210 17.8
    Wright didn't play at a college powerhouse, but he led the Big 12 Conference in 3-point shooting (44.7 percent). Some have him rated higher than Webster.
    4. Rashad McCants, North Carolina 6-4, 207 16.0
    Has the talent to be a lottery pick, but there are concerns about his attitude. Finished tied for second in North Carolina history with 221 career 3-pointers despite playing only three seasons.
    5. Francisco Garcia, Louisville 6-7, 195 15.7
    Will help any team in need of a good shooter. Made 180 3-pointers in his three years at Louisville. Shot nearly 85 percent from the free throw line in college.

    Impact on the Pacers: The Pacers need a 3-point shooter to replace Reggie Miller and to keep opposing teams from double-teaming Jermaine O'Neal. They pick 17th, and like McCants and Garcia.

    Somehow I don't think the Pacers take either.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: NBA Draft ; Picking a point guard is matter of preference

    I know a lot of you don't like Wells, but I do. Good article.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment

    Previous template Next
    Working...
    X