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

4-8-04

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

  • 4-8-04

    NBA-ready seniors again in short supply
    By Chad Ford
    NBA Insider
    Send an Email to Chad Ford
    Thursday, April 8
    Updated: April 8
    10:28 AM ET
    Chat with Insider Chad Ford from Portsmouth at 12 p.m. EST
    * Play the Lottery/Mock Draft for 1716 lottery scenarios
    PORTSMOUTH, Va. -- "Why do we even bother?" one GM said with his hands in his head. "I'm not sure there's one guy here who could make a difference on an NBA roster."
    Another assistant GM was even more scathing. "Of those 10 high school kids we saw at the Hoop Summit last weekend, how many of them could outplay everyone here right now," he asked rhetorically. "I can think of eight off the top of my head. Now everyone knows why were so in love with the teenagers. When you see what we have had to watch all year, you'd be in love too."
    Every year about this time we begin our full swing into our NBA draft coverage with a statement that shows a firm grasp for the obvious. The college senior, the kid with four years of basketball and a diploma under his belt who can come in and turn around an NBA franchise, is a dying breed.
    Some years it's more apparent than others. Last year, in fact, several seniors actually looked a little bit like NBA players. The emphasis, however, is on "a few". Of the top 10 college seniors at Portsmouth last year, only seven of the 60-plus players -- Travis Hansen, Jerome Beasley, Willie Green, James Jones, Brandon Hunter, Derrick Zimmerman and Tommy Smith -- actually got drafted. All of them went in the second round and only five made NBA rosters. And that was a good year.
    This year scouts are struggling to find one player who's as good as any of the seven listed above.
    "This may be the worst senior class in the history of the draft," another prominent GM said. "There's only one senior, Jameer Nelson, who's really a lock for the first round. That's astounding."
    Only two other seniors, Oregon's Luke Jackson and BYU's Rafael Araujo, are considered likely first-round picks. The rest are second round or worse. If that isn't bad enough, a number of seniors projected as likely second-round picks actually decided to skip Portsmouth.


    Oklahoma State's Tony Allen is among the seniors noticeably absent at Portsmouth.
    Every year there are several players who believe that, by skipping Portsmouth, they're actually protecting their "second-round status." Huh? The poster child for this group this year is Michigan's Bernard Robinson. Robinson pulled out at the last second, on the advice of his newly hired agent, sending NBA scouting director Marty Blake into a tizzy.
    Can you blame him? If Robinson is too good to play here, we all should go home. He's not alone.
    Cal's Amit Tamir, Missouri's Rickey Paulding and Arthur Johnson, Oklahoma State's Tony Allen, Duke's Chris Duhon, Vanderbilt's Matt Freije, Rutgers' Herve Lamizana, Gonzaga's Blake Stepp, Texas Tech's Andre Emmett, Xavier's Lionel Chalmers, Washington State's Marcus Moore and Xavier's Romain Sato are among the prominent names noticeably absent. Of that group, only Sato, Allen and Duhon (who both showcased their skills well in the tournament) have a reasonable excuse to skip the camp. Everyone else should've been here.
    Several others noticeably absent, like LSU's Jaime Lloreda, Cal State Fullerton's Pape Sow and Florida State's Tim Pickett, get passes because of injuries.
    What's going on here?
    "There's a perception out there, that this camp is for bottom-tier prospects," one NBA scout said. "Kids gamble that they'll get invited to Chicago or that they'll be able to rest on their laurels from the tournament. Every year we spend as much time pondering who isn't there as pondering who is there."
    The senior defections cause problems for NBA scouts. Up until two years ago, the NBA had a third draft camp, the Desert Classic, held in May. Most of the top seniors who skipped Portsmouth played there. Now, with everyone holding out until June to be seen, there is a pretty big scouting gap for many teams.
    It can also be a problem for seniors getting bad advice. How can 15 seniors feel comfortable with their draft status? Last year, 32 seniors skipped this camp. Twelve of them went undrafted. Given the slew of young international players and high school kids thinking about coming out, the list of seniors not getting any love on draft night could be ridiculous.
    So, is there anyone worth watching at Portsmouth this year?
    Here's five guys we'll be watching closely over the next few days.
    Darius Rice, SF, Miami


    Rice
    He was once considered one of the top high school players in America and a lock for the lottery. Oh how things have changed. How bad have things turned for Rice and the rest of this group at Portsmouth. I spent 30 minutes debating with an international GM about whether Rice could be a good player on a Euroleague team. When I explained this to Rice after a subpar performance in game one, his response was simply, "Huh?" Exactly. The kid is a good athlete with a great outside shot. But he's too thin and too one dimensional to really have a place in the NBA. I think he could be a great four in Europe, where big men aren't required to bulk up and are allowed to drift out past the 3-point line. I couldn't, however, convince the Euroleague GM. That's not a good thing, Darius.
    Nigel Dixon, C, Western Kentucky
    He's the best big man prospect in the camp and may be the most intriguing guy here, period. He once ballooned to 430 pounds before leaving Florida State for Western Kentucky. Since then he's dropped 100 pounds and has one of the smoothest inside games in college basketball. When his weight is under control (he still could stand to lose another 30 pounds) he has the raw materials of a decent back-up center in the NBA. But the weight thing is a big if.
    Richard Melzer, SF, Wisconsin River Falls
    Melzer is a Division III stud who has drawn comparisons to the Lakers' Devean George. Could he be this year's Jerome Beasley? Melzer is a good athlete who runs the floor and can spot up from the 3-point line. He's long and has put some muscle on his body this season. Scouts say he's more polished than George was when the Lakers made him a first-round pick. However, Melzer isn't the athlete George was. He's been playing primarily at the four this season, but scouts see him as a three in the pros. The biggest issue is lateral quickness in defending 3s at the next level. He's definitely a second-round sleeper. He averaged 26.9 ppg and 8.5 rpg on 56 percent shooting this season.
    Antonio Burks, PG, Memphis


    Burks
    A sleeper at the point guard position who really helped his draft stock with a strong senior season. He's always been a solid distributor and decision maker, but has added a very nice 3-point jump shot to his game this year that made a world of difference for him. Took nine 3s his junior year and 137 his senior year. Now, defenders have to guard him closer, which has helped him get to the basket. He's a little undersized, but scouts are intrigued.
    Desmon Farmer, SG, USC
    He was a big-time scorer on the college level, but scouts are worried about his shot. If he can improve in that area, Farmer could suddenly become a draft darling.
    Others to watch: Nate Williams, Georgia State; Cliff Hawkins, Kentucky; Brian Boddicker, Texas; Michel Morandais, Colorado; Andre Barrett, Seton Hall; Justin Davis, Stanford; Luis Flores, Manhattan; Bryant Matthews, Virginia Tech; Timmy Bowers, Mississippi State; Brandon Mouton, Texas; James Thomas, Texas; Justin Reed, Mississippi; Delonte Holland, DePaul; Taliek Brown, Uconn; Sean Finn, Dayton; Jackson Vroman, Iowa State; Gerald Fitch, Kentucky; Velimir Radinovic, Ohio State; Andre Brown, DePaul; Andrew Wisniewski, Centenary.
    Who's Hot and Who's Not at the PIT?
    * Georgia State big man Nate Williams had the game of his career in the opening game at the PIT. Williams, a 6-11, 230-pound center, looked great in the paint, scoring 24 points on 10-for-15 shooting and grabbing nine rebounds. In fact, Williams posted better numbers only once, versus Auburn, his entire senior season. Wililams is an athletic big man who runs the floor well, has nice hands and decent jump shot. His rebounding last season, however, has been suspect.
    * Miami's Darius Rice got off to a terrible start on Wednesday, going a miserable 2-for-12 from the field. The only redeeming part of his game was a nice 10-rebound performance and a willingness to go into the paint on occasion.
    * Manhattan's Luis Flores can flat out score. He showed that again on Wednesday, scoring 16 points. However, what scouts really want to see is whether the 6-foot-1 two guard can make the transition to the point in the pros. His one assist Wednesday night did little to suggest that.
    * Colorado's Michel Morandais is the oldest player here at the ripe old age of 24 and his maturity showed. Morandais scored 17 points on 7-for-12 shooting and, next to Williams, had the most impressive offensive performance of the night.
    * Seton Hall's Andre Barrett had an evening-high eight assists, but the evening-high five turnovers took away from the feat to a large extent.
    * Texas forward Brian Boddicker hit 4 of 7 from the 3-point line and ended the game with 16 points. However, scouts feel he lacks the lateral quickness to guard anybody.
    Draft Rumors
    The best thing about the PIT is that it's packed with NBA GMs, scouts and agents chewing the fat on the draft. On Wednesday night, everyone was trying to get a real handle on who's in or who's out of the draft. Here's what we're hearing . . .

    Deng
    * The biggest buzz at the PIT had to do with Duke's Luol Deng. Several scouts claim that Deng, because of his high draft position, is now thinking about the draft and gathering information. That's still a long way away from being in the draft, but the fact that he's hasn't closed the door completely encourages scouts who want him in this year.
    * By all accounts UConn's Ben Gordon and Arizona's Andre Iguodala will definitely be in the draft, though neither player has formally announced. Both players should be mid-to-late lottery picks.
    * Look for Colorado center David Harrison to officially put his name in the draft as early as Friday. If Harrison leaves, he's likely to hire an agent. Harrison has gotten mixed reviews from scouts for years. Some see him as a mid-to-late first-rounder. Others think he's a second-rounder all the way. Given the dearth of big men in the draft every year, it's hard to believe that someone wouldn't take him late in the first round.
    * Minnesota's Kris Humphries will announce his intentions to declare for the draft (and hire an agent we're told) today. Nevada's Kirk Snyder and Mississippi State's Lawrence Roberts officially declared on Tuesday and will hire an agent. Roberts' decision has some scouts scratching their heads. Apparently, several of them spoke personally with Roberts' coach and family and said he should return to school. Roberts decided to come out anyway.
    * North Carolina State's Julius Hodge is now believed to be leaning toward declaring for the draft. The general buzz about Hodge is that he'd be a mid-to-late first-rounder.
    * If the draft isn't already too full of high school players looking to strike it reach, the word is that another one, LSU recruit Glenn Davis, is now considering putting his name in the draft. Davis, a 6-foot-8, 320-pound big man, better talk to NBA reject James Lang before making his final decision. Davis is talented and has an NBA body (and then some). but he's unlikely to crack the first round if he declares.
    * The word is that Lithuanian big man Martynas Andriuskevicius might not be in the draft after all. Despite being projected anywhere from the third pick all the way down until No. 7, a source close to Andriuskevicius claims that he's reluctant to enter the draft because . . . drum roll please . . . he doesn't think he's ready. Imagine that.

    Livingston
    * Two prominent high school players who have flirted with the draft may not be in after all. Sources said that Duke recruit Shaun Livingston is hesitant to enter the draft and may decide to go ahead and play college ball next year. Livingston has been back and forth on the decision for days. Despite being rated as a top-six prospect in the draft, the source said Livingston's chances of going pro are no more that "50-50."
    North Carolina recruit Marvin Williams also sounds like he's resisting the siren's call. Williams is now receiving information from teams that he'd be a late-lottery to mid-first-round pick. That is, apparently, enough to give him his father's blessing. However, the word from several scouts was that Williams still prefers to play for the Tar Heels next year.
    * Add Washington's Nate Robinson and UCLA's Dijion Thompson to the list of ridiculous underclassmen now declaring for the draft. Given the crunch of high school and international kids already in the draft along with top underclassmen like Emeka Okafor, Josh Childress, Gordon, Iguodala, Humphries and Snyder, they have zero shot of making it into the first round. Both players claim that they won't hire agents and plan on playing at the Chicago pre-draft tournament. It's tough to see why they'd bother.
    * After the success of Slovenian point guard Sasha Vujacic at the Chicago camp last year, look for more agents to bring over second-tier international talent to get exposure or to help their draft stock. Serbia combo guard Ivan Koljevic is the latest international prospect to agree to play at Chicago this year. Right now he's a second-rounder, but could help his stock with a great performance running the point there.
Working...
X