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

CNNSI.COM: Underrated/Overrated - The 2005 Draft class

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

  • CNNSI.COM: Underrated/Overrated - The 2005 Draft class

    "Underrated/Overrated
    The '05 NBA Draft class' hidden gems, future flops

    Posted: Friday June 24, 2005 1:31PM; Updated: Sunday June 26, 2005 11:26AM

    NBA teams have had roughly a month and half to work out, measure, prod, time, and interview the 2006 draft field, but for all the hours of film watched, scouting dollars spent and analysis gleaned, player selection is still far from an exact science. Who knew that the strange pick read by Russ Granik in the waning moments of the '99 draft -- some Argentine named Emanuel Ginobili, at No. 57 -- would be the driving force behind the Spurs' title run in 2005? On draft night, everyone wants to look smart, to find the next Manu or the next Dwyane -- and stay away from the next Kwame or Tskitishvili.

    Herewith, my first NBA Draft Underrated/Overrated column, in which I look at potential steals and others who GMs might want to avoid:

    Underrated: Rashad McCants, 6-foot-4, 207-pound SG, North Carolina

    Will ex-Tar Heel Rashad McCants become a big-time scorer in the NBA?
    Bob Rosato/SI
    "He has all the right tools," one NBA source said, "and he may be the fourth-most athletic guy in the draft." But -- and but is the omnipresent word after any comment on Mr. McCants' skills -- his stock has been adversely affected by the findings of the background-checkers, who seem to have arrived at the same consensus much of the college world did: Fantastic player, if you can cope with the baggage (as in, attitude issues). To them I say, cope. The NBA is as well-versed as the TSA in the business of baggage handling, and McCants' perceived issues, which weren't a problem in the Heels' title-winning season, are trivial compared to those of Kobe or Ron Artest. "That's the problem with the draft," another NBA source said. "You can do all the scouting you want [about a prospect's background], and then if you pass on him and he uses that as motivation to become a five- or six-time All-Star, you can get fired for making such an 'obvious' mistake." I don't want to see anyone get fired. I'd advise against allowing McCants to slip too far beyond the Lottery.

    Overrated: Monta Ellis, 6-3, 175-pound G, Lanier High School (Jackson, Miss.)
    Ellis was Mississippi State's dream signee -- a homegrown two-guard who averaged 41 points per game at Jackson's Lanier High School and had the makings of a dynamic SEC scorer. He had designs on jumping straight to the League instead, and it, in turn, has designs on making him a point guard. Ellis may have been a prep wonder, but if there is an inherent risk in drafting a high-school point, isn't there an even greater gamble in selecting a high school two and presuming you can convert him into a one? Ellis was mediocre in the McDonald's All-American Game in March (just 3-for-10 shooting, two assists) and did not test well in the Chicago pre-draft camp's combine, where he was rated 70th (out of 75) prospects in athleticism. In the three-quarter-court sprint, Ellis clocked in at 3.31 seconds -- a slower time than both Gonzaga's Ronny Turiaf and UConn's Charlie Villanueva, two players who made "laborious jogging" an art form in college. Ellis may have been slowed by an injured knee -- which will require arthroscopic surgery -- in Chicago, but there are enough concerns to make him a risky first-round pick.

    Underrated: Jarrett Jack, 6-3, 202-pound PG, Georgia Tech

    On draft night, Jarrett Jack will have to wait in line behind a number of more coveted point guards.
    Bob Rosato/SI
    Did anyone fathom back in April of 2004, when Jack led Georgia Tech to the NCAA title game, that he wouldn't eventually be a lottery pick? Had he foregone his amateur status following that loss to UConn -- and entered a draft in which the top college point men were Wisconsin's Devin Harris and St. Joseph's Jameer Nelson -- Jack most likely would have received lottery consideration. And had he waited until the '06 draft (now sure to be replete of prep talent, thanks to the NBA's new collective bargaining agreement) instead of making an 11th-hour decision Tuesday to turn pro, Jack would've been a lottery pick. That won't happen in '05; the reasons are four-fold, but hardly his fault: Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Raymond Felton and Roko Ukic. It's the richest point-guard draft in years and Jack is option No. 5. "I like his size and I love his athleticism," one NBA scout said. "Once he learns not to make so many dangerous decisions, he's going to be a quality player." And a steal in the late 20s.

    Overrated: Chris Taft, 6-10, 260-pound PF, Pittsburgh
    As the draft nears, few vacancies remain on the Taft-bashing bandwagon. How much of the negativity is justified remains to be seen, but it has been open season on the Panthers' big man after a few poorly reviewed workouts. One NBA scout said he would have too many concerns to take Taft with a first-round pick, but there are still a number of teams considering him in the late teens and 20s. Taft's biggest flaw was that he had the basketball world expecting such great things -- what with his chiseled, 6-10 frame and sporadic flashes of eye-opening talent -- and never delivered during his sophomore campaign at Pitt. He relies too heavily on one post move (a jump-hook) and played lethargically in '04-05; perhaps a slight on draft night will be the grudge he needs to blossom as an aggressive player. For now, though, he hasn't shown enough. To take him before any of a slew of quality (albeit smaller) forwards on the board -- Channing Frye, Joey Graham, Hakim Warrick, Ike Diogu and Sean May -- would be a mistake.

    Underrated: Hakim Warrick, 6-9, 219-pound F, Syracuse

    Hakim Warrick could be a steal outside the lottery.

    "If Warrick goes [in the mid-teens], someone's going to get a pretty good player at a great value," one NBA source said. This is likely to be the case on draft night, when the Orange's elastic man will be an excellent pickup just outside the lottery. So what if he stayed in college for all four years? Only one player on the first-round board, Texas high-schooler Gerald Green, has a better vertical -- 39 inches, vs. Warrick's 38 in Chicago -- and Warrick, unlike Green, can contribute immediately as a pro. Hak may not be a banger in the post or have 3-point capability, but his mid-range game is stellar and he has a flair for highlight-reel dunks. On a team that already possesses a physical post presence, Warrick can play an effective role.

    Overrated: Yaroslav Korolev, 6-9, 203-pound PF, CSKA Moscow
    Everyone loves Andrei Kirilenko, the Russian who at the age of 18 was stolen by the Jazz with the No. 24 pick in the 1999 draft and became an All-Star by the time he was 23. Kirilenko is a 6-9 small forward; the 18-year-old Korolev, who happens to be the most highly touted Russian baller in quite some time, is also a 6-9 small forward, although he's a much different player -- a slender shooter with ballhandling skills, not a freakishly long-armed rebounder. Still, you get the idea; no NBA GM wants to let the next great Russian slip away, and the exec who plucks him out of the draft will be lauded. Korolev starred on the CSKA Moscow junior team and at the Euroleague junior tournament, but he has yet to be evaluated against quality competition -- just European juniors -- and one NBA source hinted at red flags. "Everyone raved about this kid in Moscow, but I hear shaky things about him off the floor -- about his maturity level and a prima-donna personality," the scout said. Other than the geography, that sounds like a review of McCants, who I tabbed as "underrated." But I've seen McCants in college hoops' elite setting, and he excelled, while Korolev is an unproven commodity who opted to sit out of the Reebok Big Man Camp in Treviso, Italy. This draft is loaded in the first round, and taking Korolev at No. 12 -- as the Clippers are reportedly considering -- seems to be too big of a reach.

    Underrated: Nate Robinson, 5-9, 180-pound G, Washington
    Every little guy with NBA dreams uses "the next Earl Boykins" as his rallying cry. Robinson shouldn't have to -- he's going to be better. A sparkplug guard who's built like a defensive back (because he was one for UW football as a freshman), Robinson wasn't UW's true No. 1 in '04-'05. That gig belonged to Will Conroy, who, like Nate the Great, is slotted as a second-round pick -- but Robinson assumed a dual-PG role in Lorenzo Romar's three- and sometimes four-guard rotations, averaging 4.5 assists per game. One would think that Robinson's absurd hops -- a 43.5-inch vertical, 4.5 inches better than Green -- and physical nature would be so appealing that his diminutive stature could be ignored. Height, however, is the thing, and Robinson has just 69 inches to his name, which seems to be ensuring his fate as a second-rounder. The franchise that grabs him in the 30s will have made one of the draft's smartest picks. "Everyone looks at his size and discounts him," one NBA scout said, "but two years ago he was the best player in Chicago [at the pre-draft camp]. I think he'll be able to transcend his height."

    Overrated: Ersan Ilyasova, 6-9, 235-pound F, Ulker Istanbul
    Ilyasova (unlike Korolev) actually drew comparisons to Kirilenko on the court, where he has somewhat of a reputation as a hustling outside shooter. While he is still a legit first-round possibility, a number of NBA teams have left Ilyasova's workouts -- including a private session during the Chicago pre-draft camp -- less than enthralled. "He was a lot more flat-footed and heavy-legged than our scouts had previously thought," one NBA source said. "Not that you have to be a great athlete to play in this league, but his athleticism -- or lack thereof -- is going to play an interesting role in where he's picked." In the Chicago combine, Ilyasova rated so poorly -- No. 74 out of 75 -- that he earned the title of Least Athletic Player Present Not Named Luke Schenscher. SI.com's Ian Thomsen reports that Ilyasova may just need time to regain confidence after major ankle surgery in 2004, but there seem to be too many questions surrounding the young Turk for him to warrant a top-30 selection."

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ted/index.html

    Source: CNNSI.Com

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  • #2
    Re: CNNSI.COM: Underrated/Overrated - The 2005 Draft class

    I think I want McCants...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: CNNSI.COM: Underrated/Overrated - The 2005 Draft class

      I want the overrated Chris Taft, he will be a player like Amare watch.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: CNNSI.COM: Underrated/Overrated - The 2005 Draft class

        Danny Granger or Joey Graham would be a steal for us!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: CNNSI.COM: Underrated/Overrated - The 2005 Draft class

          I like Warrick....I think he could be a very athletic SF in the future....in the vein of Josh Howard...but with a bigger wingspan.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: CNNSI.COM: Underrated/Overrated - The 2005 Draft class

            Originally posted by wooolus
            Danny Granger or Joey Graham would be a steal for us!
            Danny Granger will be a top 7 pick we have no chance in hell of getting him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: CNNSI.COM: Underrated/Overrated - The 2005 Draft class

              If we somehow get Joey Graham I will **** myself. I think Joey Graham may be one of the top 10 overall players in the draft.

              I think he'll be gone though.

              If we get Garcia or McCants I'll be happy.

              Comment

              Working...
              X