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

Insider - Chris Paul

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

  • Insider - Chris Paul

    Can someone please post this article? I don't understand how 7 teams passed on CP.

  • #2
    Re: Insider - Chris Paul

    Seven teams didn't pass on Chris Paul. He was the 4th pick in the draft. Bucks already had TJ Ford so that's why they passed. The Hawks should have nabbed him at # 2 though, and failing that he should have went no lower than # 3 to the Jazz. Clearly though he's playing like a top pick and the Bucks couldn't have eben faulted for grabbing him anyway and exploring trades for TJ Ford, especially since they were able to get Magloire in the offseason.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Insider - Chris Paul

      I know he was the fourth pick but it says 7 teams had a shot at him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Insider - Chris Paul

        You cant really complain about the Jazz taking Williams instead. The Bucks seriousley needed size. But the Hawks have no excuse.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Insider - Chris Paul

          Originally posted by Ragnar
          You cant really complain about the Jazz taking Williams instead. The Bucks seriousley needed size. But the Hawks have no excuse.
          The Hawks are currently looking to assemble an all SF team.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Insider - Chris Paul

            Chances are they will end up with another one next year too. Morrison or Gay.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Insider - Chris Paul

              Originally posted by 18to88
              Chances are they will end up with another one next year too. Morrison or Gay.
              I'd take Morrison if I was the hawks. Imagine starting all fowards..Marvin Williams, Joe Johnson, Al Harrington, Adam Morrison, and Josh Smith. That would be truely incredible. What do the hawks have to lose besides actual games?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Insider - Chris Paul

                http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...had&id=2311939

                Which teams blew it by passing on Paul?By Chad Ford
                ESPN Insider
                Archive

                Hindsight is always 20-20 after the NBA draft. That said, the more this season progresses, the harder it is to figure out what NBA GMs were thinking when they passed on Wake Forest sophomore point guard Chris Paul in last year's draft.

                By March of his freshman year, NBA scouts were already calling him the best college point-guard prospect since Jason Kidd. He had a stellar sophomore season and looked great in workouts, but somehow a number of teams passed up the chance to draft him or to trade for the opportunity to take him.

                Paul ended up going No. 4 to the Hornets, but as many as seven other teams had a shot at him before the draft. Most of them have to be kicking themselves now, as Paul has led the Hornets out of the cellar in the West and could be an All-Star in his rookie season. And he's only 20.

                Looking back to last June, let's ask the question GMs don't want their fans to ask: Who could have had Paul, and why didn't they take him?

                The breakdown:

                Milwaukee Bucks
                How they could have picked Paul: Held the No. 1 pick in the draft

                The skinny: It looks as though the Bucks never seriously considered Paul. They quickly narrowed their list down to two players: Utah big man Andrew Bogut and North Carolina forward Marvin Williams. Both Bogut and Williams filled needs, while Paul happened to play the same position as two promising young players for the Bucks: T.J. Ford and Mo Williams.

                The verdict: While it looks as if neither Ford nor Williams will be as good as Paul, passing on Paul wasn't a major mistake, given the other holes the Bucks had to fill. Bogut appears to be a solid big man, a rare commodity in the draft. You can't really say the Bucks blew it.

                Atlanta Hawks
                How: Held the No. 2 pick in the draft

                The skinny: Amazingly, when draft day rolled around, it looked like the Hawks weren't seriously considering Paul with the No. 2 pick. Sources close to the Hawks told Insider around draft time they were deciding between Marvin Williams and Illinois point guard Deron Williams. That's odd, because of all the players in the draft, Paul best fit the Hawks' biggest hole. The team desperately needed (and still needs) a floor leader who can push the ball up the floor.

                The verdict: With a track record that now includes letting Chris Paul slip through his fingers, it's hard to see how Atlanta GM Billy Knight will keep his job much longer. Marvin Williams might turn out to be the best player in the draft someday, but King probably won't be around to take the credit. Williams' skills duplicate almost all the strengths of the other players on the roster. Don't forget, if Knight had decided to draft for need, chances are he would've drafted Deron Williams over Paul. Had the team drafted Paul and added Joe Johnson, it would have one of the best backcourts in the NBA and a much better record than it does now.

                Portland Trail Blazers
                How: Originally held the No. 3 pick in the draft

                The skinny: The Blazers did consider drafting Paul with the No. 3 pick, but ultimately decided they had their point guard of the future in Sebastian Telfair. They eventually traded the pick to the Jazz for the No. 6 and No. 27 picks in the draft. They used the No. 6 pick on high school phenom Martell Webster. GM John Nash said after the draft that had the Blazers kept the pick, they still would've drafted Webster at No. 3.

                The verdict: Like Knight in Atlanta, Nash has blundered in Portland and might lose his job by summer over errors like passing on Paul. Nash said in an interview after the draft that he believed Telfair was "ahead of the curve" in comparing him to Paul. That clearly hasn't been the case. There isn't an NBA scout I've talked to who thinks Telfair is in the same league as Paul as a point guard or as a prospect. The Blazers missed badly on this one. Their love affair with high school stars, Telfair and Webster included, has left them in the NBA cellar.

                Utah Jazz
                How: Acquired the No. 3 pick in the draft from the Blazers

                The skinny: The Jazz struggled with the decision between Paul and Deron Williams up until the day of the draft, but ultimately decided Williams was a better fit in their system. He was bigger, scouts saw him as a better shooter and defender, and he seemed a little more comfortable in the half-court game. Paul's style of play -- he gets the ball up and down the court quickly -- and his occasional defensive lapses didn't seem as good a fit in head coach Jerry Sloan's system.

                The verdict: The jury's still out. A lot of scouts loved Williams and agreed with Utah's assessment that he was a better fit in their system. Williams is having an inconsistent rookie season, but there's nothing to suggest that he won't become a great player with more time. Still, you have to wonder whether the Jazz overthought this. I have a hard time believing, after watching them both play this year, that Williams will overtake Paul as the best point guard to come out of this draft.

                Charlotte Bobcats
                How: Could have acquired the No. 2 or No. 3 pick in the draft via trade for the No. 5 and No. 13 picks

                The skinny: The Bobcats got unlucky on lottery night, slipping from the prospective No. 2 pick to the No. 5 pick because of some bounces of the ping-pong balls. GM Bernie Bickerstaff had his eye on two franchise-type players all year -- Marvin Williams and Paul. Either would've fit a need, complemented Emeka Okafor and been wildly popular with Charlotte's fans because of their local ties. Both the Hawks and the Blazers were willing to deal their pick to Charlotte, but Bickerstaff felt that, as an expansion team, the Bobcats could not afford to give up two lottery picks for one player.

                The verdict: Bickerstaff made his first major blunder for the Bobcats. The two players the Bobcats got, Raymond Felton and Sean May, were also North Carolina favorites, but neither has the star potential or local popularity of Paul. This is an example of when being conservative doesn't pay off. An expansion team needs star players to build around, and Paul would've been the cornerstone. Felton and May? They both have talent, but the chance that either becomes an NBA All-Star is slim.

                Toronto Raptors
                How: Could have acquired the No. 3 or No. 4 pick in the draft via trade for the No. 7 and No. 15 picks

                The skinny: The Raptors, like the Bobcats, overvalued the multiple picks they were getting in the draft. They had a star power forward, Chris Bosh, to build around and desperately needed to add a point guard and center to complete the puzzle.

                The verdict: We saw it on Thursday when the Raptors fired GM Rob Babcock. Charlie Villanueva and Joey Graham weren't bad picks. But Villanueva plays the same position as Bosh. The Raptors' point-guard troubles have been temporarily solved by the stellar play of Mike James, but he's an unrestricted free agent this summer and will likely bolt Toronto (or be traded first). Had the Raptors added Paul, it might have been enough to save Babcock's job and convince Bosh that the team is heading in the right direction. Even more important, it would've made them better. Paul would've had the same impact in Toronto that he's having for New Orleans/Oklahoma City. Babcock's blunder may have been the biggest of them all -- Paul could've saved his job and given Raptors fans a reason to care again.

                Boston Celtics
                How: There was talk around draft time of a trade that would've sent Paul Pierce to Portland for the No. 3 pick in the draft and the nonguaranteed contract of Nick Van Exel.

                The skinny: Danny Ainge labeled the rumor of the trade "ludicrous." However, sources from both teams have said it was considered. The Blazers would've done it in a heartbeat, because they had coveted Pierce for some time and felt they already had their point guard of the future in Telfair.

                The verdict: The Celtics should've pulled the trigger. The team is clearly rebuilding. While Delonte West has played well for Boston this year at the point, he's no Chris Paul. West would be a stellar sixth man. Paul and Al Jefferson would have given the Celtics a very young inside-outside combo that would've been awesome down the road. As it stands, the Celtics are running to stand still. Eventually players such as Jefferson, Kendrick Perkins and West are going to be good. But by the time they get there, will players such as Pierce and Wally Szczerbiak (who are both 28) still be good enough to help them win a championship? A deal like this could've set the clock back a bit, shored up their talent base and given the Celtics some cap flexibility in the free-agent market.

                Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider.
                New Zealand's Number 1 Pacer Fan!! Visited Conseco Fieldhouse Feb 10 2006

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Insider - Chris Paul

                  If we drafted Chris Paul AJ would start over him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Insider - Chris Paul

                    Everyone has 20-20 hindsight!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X