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 2006 Draft question

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

  • #61
    Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

    Originally posted by Mourning
    So, I guess no one likes the idea of trading this years pick and say Freddie in a sign & trade for a (much) higher and very likely a much better pick next year when the draft is said to be much deeper?

    Regards,

    Mourning
    uh, HELL no.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

      rcarey said...."We just desperately need a guy who approaches the game like Shelden does down low in the paint."

      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++

      I am with you on that sentiment. The Pacers need smarter and more
      durable players and Williams brings that plus defense.

      As far as trading into next years lottery I would do that if the player or
      players you wanted are gone. There are good players in the second round.

      Novak***
      Everrett**
      Williams**
      White****

      owl
      {o,o}
      |)__)
      -"-"-

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

        Which player position is easier to transition from the NCAA to the NBA?

        I've always heard that Big Men....unless they are clearly talented.....take much longer to transition their game to the NBA as long as they are given the proper minutes ( Harrison is living proof of that ). Isn't it sort of the same thing with PGs....unless they are one of the top 3 PGs in the draft......its a cr@pshoot as to whether they will really pan out?

        Barring picking up a sure-fire draftpick ( like Granger ) in the mid rounds.....and given that the college player has the height and size....isn't it better to draft either a SG or SF...as its more of a safer ( of course, not guaranteed ) bet that they will transition their game into the NBA?

        I've been thinking of the offseason...and trying to figure out which type of player would best fit our needs...and unless another "Granger" like player falls into our laps.....I'm thinking that it maybe better to draft a SG (mainly to develop and eventually take the spot that Freddie will likely vacate when he bolts for Free Agency ) if a decent PF isn't available.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

          I hope we get another steal like we did last in with Granger. I'm glad we are getting out of our mode of picking these no name Australian guys that go to camp and disappear.

          Williams would be awesome but, don't trade Harrison to get him; I believe Harrison is really going to be something special next year. Williams is going to be a Shane Battier.

          I don't understand why so many people are saying Reddick isn't going to be a good pro, I feel he will be excellant; do you see where he is shooting from? near half court lol. WAY BEYOND EVEN THE NBA THREE POINT LINE. The kid can shoot, and that isn't just going to disappear in the NBA. The aren't wide open shots, the shots Reddick makes is with 2-3 guys on him.

          Morrison is sorta over rated; don't get be wrong grab him if you can but, he is going to disappear in 3 years of the nba. Reddick will stay around, he'll fall into a role just like Chris Mullen WONDERFUL shooter. I wouldn't mind seeing him in the Pacers Jersey. Reddick will go 4-6, Aldridge (texas) is going first and Morrison probably second.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

            Originally posted by BoomBaby31
            I hope we get another steal like we did last in with Granger. I'm glad we are getting out of our mode of picking these no name Australian guys that go to camp and disappear.

            Williams would be awesome but, don't trade Harrison to get him; I believe Harrison is really going to be something special next year. Williams is going to be a Shane Battier.

            I don't understand why so many people are saying Reddick isn't going to be a good pro, I feel he will be excellant; do you see where he is shooting from? near half court lol. WAY BEYOND EVEN THE NBA THREE POINT LINE. The kid can shoot, and that isn't just going to disappear in the NBA. The aren't wide open shots, the shots Reddick makes is with 2-3 guys on him.

            Morrison is sorta over rated; don't get be wrong grab him if you can but, he is going to disappear in 3 years of the nba. Reddick will stay around, he'll fall into a role just like Chris Mullen WONDERFUL shooter. I wouldn't mind seeing him in the Pacers Jersey. Reddick will go 4-6, Aldridge (texas) is going first and Morrison probably second.
            If Reddick is on the board when we likely draft.......probably the 15-17 spot....then he would be a decent pickup as a backup SG assuming there is not other player that unexpectedly drops to the Pacers again....unless there is some solid PF that can be had.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

              Originally posted by BoomBaby31
              I'm glad we are getting out of our mode of picking these no name Australian guys that go to camp and disappear.
              Erm...the only Aussie to be drafted in the last few years was Andrew Bogut. That trend died off several years ago.

              In the 2nd round, Australian Brad Newley, could be a good potential pick. 6'6, long, athletic, can shoot from range. Needs to improve defense and bulk up abit, but is only 21.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

                When considering whom to draft, I think it'd be interesting to know what positions of need the Pacers have first. To know that, we have to know what players are still going to be here after the summer ends.

                Point Guard: Are Donnie and Larry going to trade Tinsley, making room for Sarunas or AJ to be the starting PG, or are they going to trade for a starting PG, draft a starting PG, or is Tinsley going to have the opportunity to prove his worth next season?

                Shooting Guard: Is Stephen worth the trouble? Sure he can be a fantastic scorer and defender, but he also has trouble keeping his mind on the game, and his shot is streaky. Meanwhile, Fred is probably heading elsewhere. It appears that the Pacers are going to need at least a capable backup SG.

                Small Forward: This a position that doesn't have outstanding needs. Danny Granger is a very capable player. If Peja doesn't re-sign, then DG is our man. If Peja does re-sign, then perhaps DG plays the backup role here as well as at PF. If Peja doesn't re-sign, then maybe the Pacers start Danny and use Austin Croshere as a backup. Lots of possibilites at this position.

                Power Forward: Barring a trade, Jermaine is obviously the starting PF. There isn't a designated backup here though. Danny, Austin, Jeff, and probably another player or two can be the subsitute 4, but the Pacers certainly could use a young PF to learn behind an All-Star.

                Center: Several players have played this position. David, Jeff, Scot, Jermaine, and even Austin. All played that position to varying degrees of effectiveness from one time to another. Do the Pacers need another center? Good question.

                While we can accumulate lists of possible players, it is very possible that the Pacers will take the most talented player remaining. With potential holes to fill at a variety of spots, who knows what moves the team may make after the draft. The roster could be very different next season, or it could look relatively similar.

                The Pacers are going to have a mid-first round pick. So, I'm going to leave off players destined to go in the lottery. I do not have any information on any international players, so they don't make my list. Some of these players are underclassmen. My short list includes, in order of preference:

                Al Horford F 6'9" 242lbs.
                Brandon Roy SG 6'6" 210lbs.
                Marcus Williams PG 6'3" 205lbs.
                Hilton Armstrong F/C 6'11" 235lbs.
                Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

                  I really do like Marcus Willams, has some baggage, but good Basketball IQ , and can really run an offsense well, and yes he is a pass-first PG.

                  He's only 20 so good amount of upside.

                  Why Not Us ?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

                    We need to draft someone without baggage a la Danny Granger.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

                      Originally posted by PacerMan
                      Oliver MIller was VERY skilled and had very good feet as well. If he had been able to keep his weight under control he would have been a very good player for a lot of years. All star for a few.
                      They are WAY similar.
                      Oliver Miller may have had very good feet, but he has extremely slow feet to go along with it.

                      Notice I said Big Baby has QUICK feet, not just good feet. Davis isn't a typical post up player. He sets up in the high post for a jumper, or he takes his man off the dribble.

                      The only thing Oliver Miller can dribble is food off of his chin.

                      Davis was a nationally recruited tailback in HS. He man moves like he weighs 70lbs less than what he really does. Miller can barely move in general.

                      The comparisons are hardly close.


                      If Oliver Miller was shorter too, he could of been a guard.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

                        Random trivia: A certain prominant member of PD compared David Harrison to Oliver Miller on draft night.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

                          Charles Barkley mocked Oliver Miller for his leaping ability. "You can't even jump high enough to touch the rim," he declared one day, "unless they put a Big Mac on it!"

                          FWIW:
                          Like PacerMan I’m remembering Oliver Miller as a rather skilled big man who just could never keep the weight off. Skillwise he was an NBA player.

                          His hoopshype bio is accurate IMO:

                          http://www.hoopshype.com/players/oliver_miller.htm

                          a talented center, good shooting touch, excellent passing skills for his position, long arms, good shot-blocker in the past, has always had serious weight problems, lacks mobility.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

                            Originally posted by obnoxiousmodesty
                            When considering whom to draft, I think it'd be interesting to know what positions of need the Pacers have first. To know that, we have to know what players are still going to be here after the summer ends.

                            Point Guard: Are Donnie and Larry going to trade Tinsley, making room for Sarunas or AJ to be the starting PG, or are they going to trade for a starting PG, draft a starting PG, or is Tinsley going to have the opportunity to prove his worth next season?

                            Shooting Guard: Is Stephen worth the trouble? Sure he can be a fantastic scorer and defender, but he also has trouble keeping his mind on the game, and his shot is streaky. Meanwhile, Fred is probably heading elsewhere. It appears that the Pacers are going to need at least a capable backup SG.

                            Small Forward: This a position that doesn't have outstanding needs. Danny Granger is a very capable player. If Peja doesn't re-sign, then DG is our man. If Peja does re-sign, then perhaps DG plays the backup role here as well as at PF. If Peja doesn't re-sign, then maybe the Pacers start Danny and use Austin Croshere as a backup. Lots of possibilites at this position.

                            Power Forward: Barring a trade, Jermaine is obviously the starting PF. There isn't a designated backup here though. Danny, Austin, Jeff, and probably another player or two can be the subsitute 4, but the Pacers certainly could use a young PF to learn behind an All-Star.

                            Center: Several players have played this position. David, Jeff, Scot, Jermaine, and even Austin. All played that position to varying degrees of effectiveness from one time to another. Do the Pacers need another center? Good question.

                            While we can accumulate lists of possible players, it is very possible that the Pacers will take the most talented player remaining. With potential holes to fill at a variety of spots, who knows what moves the team may make after the draft. The roster could be very different next season, or it could look relatively similar.

                            The Pacers are going to have a mid-first round pick. So, I'm going to leave off players destined to go in the lottery. I do not have any information on any international players, so they don't make my list. Some of these players are underclassmen. My short list includes, in order of preference:

                            Al Horford F 6'9" 242lbs.
                            Brandon Roy SG 6'6" 210lbs.
                            Marcus Williams PG 6'3" 205lbs.
                            Hilton Armstrong F/C 6'11" 235lbs.
                            If a very solid player that Bird/Walsh are very high on somehow drops to the Pacers.....then we draft the best player available....regardless of the position.

                            However....if the best players are already taken by the 15+ spot....then I would hope that we can draft based off of need.

                            In terms of need, I rank the positions as follows:

                            1 ) SG
                            2 ) PF
                            3 ) SF
                            4 ) PG
                            5 ) C

                            As you said...it depends on what is going to happen in the offseason and what Bird decides to do. I pray that SJax is gone and we have resigned Peja....which means that Freddie is likely gone.....so I think we need a solid SG pick that can shoot and ( if possible ) provide some very solid defense in the 1st round. However, if there is a very solid PF that is available at the time....then I wouldn't mind drafting one.

                            The SF, PG and C positions...we are IMHO deep enough at those positions...and if needed ( like if Peja isn't resigne )....we can sign or trade for a veteran Free Agent that can fill the backup SF position.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

                              Originally posted by Hicks
                              We need to draft someone without baggage a la Danny Granger.

                              His baggage is going to be checked at the door. I really think it was a one time thing, and after hearing more details on the situation he was third or fourth man in the chain of events.

                              It doesn't absolve him of his actions, but he wasn't the mastermind behind the whole thing either.

                              If he fell into the Ps lap, you can pretty much say bye-bye to Tinsley. Williams is going to be a very good pro.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: NBA Draft 2006 Draft question

                                Originally posted by Hicks
                                Random trivia: A certain prominant member of PD compared David Harrison to Oliver Miller on draft night.
                                Hope it wasn't me. I do know I called him Fatty.... I didn't like him then.
                                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X