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

The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 14
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 template Next
  • #61
    Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

    Might as well revive the Mock Thread a number of sites have recently updated thier predictions
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (1.Draft.Net
    Shannon Brown

    Updated June 4

    17. Indiana
    Shannon Brown 6-3 200 SG Mich St. Jr.
    So apparently from one Mich St Guard now to another according to this Site.
    I did read somewhere that Brown has already worked out with the Pacers..


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------Updated June 1..
    (2.)HoopsHype

    Sergio Rodriguez


    6-3 PG Estudiantes (Spain) / 1986

    Phenomenal ballhandling skills and court vision. A good athlete with nice size to boot. Started off the season slow, but is putting up NBA type assist numbers towards the end of the year in the toughest domestic league in Europe.

    Inconsistent perimeter shot and matador defense are huge knocks against him. Clearly a year or more away still.

    Comparison: Carlos Arroyo
    Rookie season salary*: $1,099,100
    Stats: 5.1 ppg, 3.7 apg, 2.6 rpg, 1.5 spg
    Ranking: 4th Point Guard / 3rd International

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (3.)Draft Express
    Sergio Rodríguez

    Updated June 1
    17 Indiana Pacers


    Name:Sergio Rodríguez
    Height:6' 3"
    Weight:170 pounds
    Current Team:Adecco Estudiantes , International

    NBA Position:PG
    Date of Birth:6/12/1986 (19 Years Old)
    High School:
    Hometown:Tenerife, Spain
    Earliest Draft Class:2005
    Current Position:PG
    Possible Positions:PG
    Best Case Scenario:Steve Nash
    Worst Case Scenario:Rafer Alston

    Sergio Rodríguez is an off-the-charts basketball talent; one of just a few players capable of surprising even the most knowledgeable minds in the game with his moves. A very creative playmaker, he has a superb ability to generate offense, whether for himself or for his teammates, based on an outstanding skill set.
    As you can see, there is nothing particularly special regarding his physical profile; what really sets him apart from virtually every other youngster is his skill set. To start with, Sergio is a terrific ball-handler. More in the line to what we usually see in American playmakers, he dominates the ball. High dribble, low dribble, crossover, behind-the-back dribble, he’s mastered every single variant at a young age with both hands. But he’s not an exhibitionist; it’s only a matter of gaining advantages through this skill. He’s really quick driving the ball, and creative in order to get to where he wants.
    Above are just portions of a much larger article..
    L I N K

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (4.)

    InsideHoops
    Mardy Collins

    Updated May 28th
    17. Indiana Pacers
    Mardy Collins (Temple, 6-6, 205, PG, Sr.)


    Highly versatile and fundamentally sound ballhandling type who can play the 1, 2 or the 3. Temple's main point guard, plays all 40 minutes for them more often than not. Tough and unselfish, controls the tempo and plays with lots of poise. Terrific off-the-ball defender. Not an incredible athlete or outside shooter. Temple's archaic system limited his numbers, but will be a better pro than college player.

    Comparison: Marko Jaric
    Rookie season salary*: $754,700
    Stats: 16.8 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 4.0 apg
    Ranking: 6th Point Guard / 8th Senior

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (5.)CollegeHoopsNet
    Rajon Rondo

    Updated May 31st-- (Next updated June 6th)
    17 Indiana
    Rajon Rondo
    College: Kentucky
    Class: Sophomore
    Stats: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player...playerId=22099

    Position: PG
    Height: 6’1”
    Weight: 171lbs
    Accolades: McDonald’s All-American (high school) (04), SEC All-Freshman Team (05), USA Men’s Under 21 Team (05).

    Scouting Report: A lightning quick, explosive leaping point guard with off the charts rebounding ability. Unfortunately he doesn’t possess much of a shooting touch.

    Strengths: Great penetrator and disher. His quickness allows him to blow by defenders, and he also has a nice passing touch. An unbelievably strong rebounder for a point guard (or for any position for that matter) – grabbed 19 boards in a game this year. He is also is a terrific defender – using his great quickness, long reach, and jumping ability to snare passes and loose balls.

    Weaknesses: Poor outside shooter. He hasn’t shown the ability to knock down the 3-point shot consistently. His big hands make his shot ugly to look at. He also is a horrible free throw shooter, although to his credit he has improved this year. Hasn’t been a big time scorer on the college level.

    Projected 2006 Draft Range: Late lottery pick.

    Consensus: Rondo’s quickness, leaping ability and defensive prowess make him a great NBA prospect. If he works hard on his shooting touch he could become an all-star point guard down the road. For the meantime defenders will continue to lag off him until he proves he can knock down jumpers.

    Why Not Us ?

    Comment

    • #62
      Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

      6
      FoxSports
      Jordan Farmar

      Updated June 1st

      17. Pacers
      Jordan Farmar PG UCLA
      Grabbing a point guard would benefit the Pacers for two reasons: First, we don't know if Anthony Johnson's breakout showing in the playoffs will hold up for 82 games. Second, Jamaal Tinsely can't stay healthy for more than a week at a clip.

      Why Not Us ?

      Comment

      • #63
        Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

        Out of all those dudes I would want Mardy Collins the most. I really want a big PG like Shaun Livingston.

        Comment

        • #64
          Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

          Collins sounds really interesting indeed! The Spaniard could be good too IF we want a few years for him to develop, which I wouldn't personally be opposed to.

          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

          Comment

          • #65
            Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

            It's pretty unfortunate that Marcus Williams is the only legit PG in this draft, IMO. Everyone else has a glaring weakness, whether it be shooting, quickness or size. I know we need help there, but I just don't think Lowry, Collins, Farmer or Rondo are going to be anything better than average pros. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd rather take the best player available than take a flyer on any marginal point guard, we already have a bunch of those.

            I'd much rather have Hilton Armstrong, Shannon Brown, Ager or Douby instead.
            Read my Pacers blog:
            8points9seconds.com

            Follow my twitter:
            @8pts9secs

            Comment

            • #66
              Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

              Originally posted by JayRedd
              It's pretty unfortunate that Marcus Williams is the only legit PG in this draft, IMO. Everyone else has a glaring weakness, whether it be shooting, quickness or size. I know we need help there, but I just don't think Lowry, Collins, Farmer or Rondo are going to be anything better than average pros. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd rather take the best player available than take a flyer on any marginal point guard, we already have a bunch of those.

              I'd much rather have Hilton Armstrong, Shannon Brown, Ager or Douby instead.
              Williams is the only legit PG in the draft? I couldn't disagree more.

              I don't think many drafts will have a deeper point guard class.

              Williams is the most complete PG in the draft, no doubt, but just because the others are not as well rounded doesn't mean they aren't legit PGs.

              Farmar or Serigo, get er done Larry!

              Comment

              • #67
                Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

                Originally posted by rommie
                Williams is the only legit PG in the draft? I couldn't disagree more.

                I don't think many drafts will have a deeper point guard class.

                Williams is the most complete PG in the draft, no doubt, but just because the others are not as well rounded doesn't mean they aren't legit PGs.

                Farmar or Serigo, get er done Larry!
                Legit was probably the wrong word. But he's the only one I'd want to hand the keys too. I don't see any of the others as potential All Stars, and only one or two others that are even going to be very productive starters in the long-term.

                Just my opinion though, and I haven't actually seen that much of Collins and none of Serigo. But I watch a lot of the Big East, and I seriously doubt Lowry is anything special. And I'm not big on Farmar or Rondo at all.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:
                @8pts9secs

                Comment

                • #68
                  Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

                  Out of all the people I've seen projected, I like Collins the best for our spot. Also, I'm glad this is a good PG draft because I think it's our best shot at shoring up that position.
                  Play Mafia!
                  Twitter

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

                    I'd probably shed a happy tear if Reddick dropped that far. Reddick is goin to go 4-7 no later but, I hope I'm wrong

                    Comment

                    • #70
                      Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

                      Reddick a top-7 pick? I would REALLY be surprised IF that happenned. Not totally impossible, offcourse, but unlikely I would say.

                      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

                      Comment

                      • #71
                        Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

                        Sergio sounds good to me.

                        Excellent ballhandler, passer, penetrator, playmaker... his skills are not duplicated by any Pacer on the roster unless Tinsley is 100% healthy and loses some weight.
                        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

                        • #72
                          Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

                          I'd love Hilton Armstrong or Josh Boone, either of the former Huskies...

                          Comment

                          • #73
                            Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

                            Mardy Collins, please.

                            No reason really to draft another center. Most centers need a few years. Even a guy like Hilton Armstrong won't be more ready than David was. Improve David instead. Guy has obviously shown potential-get him a big-man coach.

                            Comment

                            • #74
                              Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

                              Here's a very interesting read on one of Adam Morrison's recent workouts by DraftExpress.

                              http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1327

                              This kid is gonna be something special.....not Ron Artest "Special Ed kid with a helmet" special.....Larry Bird special ( that maybe a stretch....but he sounds rather impressive ).
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment

                              • #75
                                Re: The mock draft thread, 2006 NBA draft

                                One more thing....it looks like the Pacers are gonna work James White out on June 15th.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 template Next
                                Working...
                                X